Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Glass Signs Deal With Ray Ban's Parent Company

Unknown Lamer posted about 6 months ago | from the you're-not-cool-enough dept.

Google 125

sfcrazy (1542989) writes with news that fancier Google Glasswear is coming soon "Google has signed a deal with The Luxottica Group, the world's largest eyewear company (controlling 80% of the eyewear market). Luxottica owns Ray-Ban, Oakley, Vogue-Eyewear, Persol, Oliver Peoples, Alain Mikli, and Arnette. The deal shows how serious Google is about Glass, contrary to the skepticism raised by high-profiled users like Robert Scoble who spelled doom for the device."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fuck me (2, Interesting)

Chrisq (894406) | about 6 months ago | (#46572083)

At this rate Google will be the new Apple. Overpriced designer products that rely on being the "in thing" anyone?

Re:fuck me (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46572115)

I don't like Apple that much, but they've done way more than Google ever has. Apple have been experts at user-friendly integration: remember, after all, that the user of their products - unlike in Google's case - is also the customer. If you want an idea of what happens when Google is left to design something, you only have to look at Google+ or... well... yes, Google Glass.

Google's only innovation of interest has been their PageRank algorithm. Everything since then has been a bought-out or an also-ran.

Re:fuck me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46572133)

You seem to be thinking there is any connection between the innovative company that made computing ubiquitous and user friendly in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s and the company selling mediocre overpriced electronics that are reliant on expensive vendor lock-in services nowadays other than the name and the logo.

Re:fuck me (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46572219)

The iPhone UI was rather good, and was Apple's last showing of what it did really well.

Re:fuck me (1)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about 6 months ago | (#46572761)

The iPhone UI was rather good, and was Apple's last showing of what it did really well.

A fact that is only emphasised by the fact that Google redesigned their phones and the Android UI from aping BlackBerry to aping the iPhone and it's OS [pcworld.com] . I'm not sure the iPhone and it's UI is the last time Apple will demonstrate how it does UI and design very well but it is the latest.

Re:fuck me (0)

Sockatume (732728) | about 6 months ago | (#46572889)

Bear in mind that's same basic OS that has them selling $500 tablets while everyone else is at $200. That's not a bad job all things considered.

Re:fuck me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46573117)

Apple's hardware works! Look at Mac Book Air and all other gizmo ultrabooks and you'll notice why Apple's stuff works well!

Re:fuck me (3, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | about 6 months ago | (#46573123)

The OS is only part of it. I am not a fanboi, but Apple does several things nicely:

-it creates reality distortion fields of billion dollar size
-it has consistent build quality that reflects serious engineering feats, and vendor liaison and supply-chain discipline
-it has remarkable consistency, good and bad, mostly good
-they are very good at supporting their users and are very connected/focused on their users
-they are masters, perhaps wizards at meme control.

The OS is very important, but that's not why they get top dollar for their goods. Their assets don't depreciate as rapidly, and they are fiendishly consistent.

Re:fuck me (1)

ketomax (2859503) | about 6 months ago | (#46572137)

Google's only innovation of interest has been their PageRank algorithm. Everything since then has been a bought-out or an also-ran.

What about gmail & google docs?

Re:fuck me (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46572181)

What on earth is interesting about either of them? Gmail is just another webmail service which benefits greatly from exposure through the Google search brand. And Docs is Writely + XL2Web, an experiment in Javascript with no features over either MS Office or LibreOffice. If you're doing professional document editing in a browser, you're insane.

Re:fuck me (1, Insightful)

LordThyGod (1465887) | about 6 months ago | (#46572273)

The portability, sharing and collaboration of Gdocs is light years ahead of the others. Nobody I know gives a rats ass about "professional" editing.

Re:fuck me (2)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about 6 months ago | (#46572817)

If you're doing professional document editing in a browser, you're insane.

The portability, sharing and collaboration of Gdocs is light years ahead of the others. Nobody I know gives a rats ass about "professional" editing.

You have evidently never done a Bachelor's or Master's Thesis. If you had you'd be familiar with a group of people that places much importance on "professional" editing. Granted, scientists use TEX rather than an office suite but the 'professional' editing of scientific reports, thesis and papers is almost considered as important as the content and there are some very good and obvious reasons for that.

Re:fuck me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46573133)

>Granted, scientists use TEX rather than an office suite but the 'professional' editing of scientific
Not anymore. Journals accept MS word files now.

Also TEX is shit. If you want it to look nice, use InDesign.

Re:fuck me (1)

Maury Markowitz (452832) | about 6 months ago | (#46572845)

> The portability, sharing and collaboration of Gdocs is light years ahead of the others

But not light years ahead of sending an xls in an email.

Sorry, but that's what the real world still uses.

Maybe someday someone will figure out how to change that fact, but so far GDocs is not that solution.

Re:fuck me (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 6 months ago | (#46573617)

> The portability, sharing and collaboration of Gdocs is light years ahead of the others

But not light years ahead of sending an xls in an email.

Sorry, but that's what the real world still uses.

Maybe someday someone will figure out how to change that fact, but so far GDocs is not that solution.

Maybe it's because you don't have to "send" the XLS in the Googleverse. You simply share out the Google doc of the spreadsheet to the intended recipient.

Maybe you're referring to spreadsheets crammed with gnarly formulas that are uniquely Microsoft, but those aren't the kind of XLS files I'm accustomed to getting or sending myself.

Re:fuck me (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 6 months ago | (#46574165)

Yea, and while you may do that, and Google employees may do that ... no one else does. Thats the point.

People email XLS files because Excel is light years beyond anything Google has on the drawing board. If you've got some fancy Google sheets page that you think is bad ass ... congratulations, you're working with what it was like on the pre-release versions of Lotus 1-2-3. Google sheets is a joke, as is there Docs. They've got all the proprietary disadvantages of Microsoft products. NONE of the advantages, none of the years of development, and in order to use it ... you have to not only pay them in one form or another, but you have to accept that they're scanning your documents and can read any data they want.

Using Google Sheets for business purposes shows a serious lack of technical knowledge.

I'm guessing you think Excel is a way to look at rows of a database in the form of a CSV, in which case ... you're doing it wrong across the board.

Re:fuck me (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 6 months ago | (#46574613)

Yea, and while you may do that, and Google employees may do that ... no one else does. Thats the point.

People email XLS files because Excel is light years beyond anything Google has on the drawing board. If you've got some fancy Google sheets page that you think is bad ass ... congratulations, you're working with what it was like on the pre-release versions of Lotus 1-2-3. Google sheets is a joke, as is there Docs. They've got all the proprietary disadvantages of Microsoft products. NONE of the advantages, none of the years of development, and in order to use it ... you have to not only pay them in one form or another, but you have to accept that they're scanning your documents and can read any data they want.

Using Google Sheets for business purposes shows a serious lack of technical knowledge.

I'm guessing you think Excel is a way to look at rows of a database in the form of a CSV, in which case ... you're doing it wrong across the board.

To be precise, my clients use Excel as a way to look at/send me rows of a database in the form of a CSV.

I use spreadsheets for basic calculations, but that's all. Anything more complex usually mandates an actual program.

The only time I ever receive an XLS that uses all those gee-whiz macro features that make it different than generic-cheapo-spreadsheet is when someone has exceeded the limits of what a spreadsheet can do and they need me to convert it into an actual application. Which is generally long after they've exceeded the limits of what a spreadsheet should be doing in the hands of sane people.

Frankly, I wouldn't trust a computationally-complex spreadsheet in the hands of most people. They start typing numbers in over the forumulas (violating cell protections in the process) and do other things that compromise its integrity.

Excel for the win (1)

Dareth (47614) | about 6 months ago | (#46573645)

I knew people in the "real world" use Excel for a database. I did not know they used them for professional document editing too. Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:fuck me (2)

BitZtream (692029) | about 6 months ago | (#46574121)

Thats because nobody you know does anything of importance, and thats really sad in this day and age.

Re:fuck me (1)

Barny (103770) | about 6 months ago | (#46572349)

It has the best and most important feature over MS Office.

It is free.

Re:fuck me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46572479)

It has the best and most important feature over MS Office.

It is free.

MS Office Web Apps are also free.

Re:fuck me (1)

Barny (103770) | about 6 months ago | (#46572539)

Well hot damn, I will tell my boss that right away!

Of course, the loading time for it is a bit much but I am sure my whole company will love this free resource they can now use.

Re:fuck me (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 6 months ago | (#46573635)

Well hot damn, I will tell my boss that right away!

Of course, the loading time for it is a bit much but I am sure my whole company will love this free resource they can now use.

They like free employees even more.

And if you're a Team Player, I'm sure that if it really takes that much longer to download, you'll gladly stay late to deal with it. Salaried, of course, not overtime.

After all, there are plenty of people in (Third World Country) who would be more than happy to!

Never underestimate the willingness of modern companies - or consumers - to "save money" no matter what the ultimate cost.

Re:fuck me (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46572417)

When gmail first came out (you may be too young to remember that) it was indeed interresting compared to other webmail. (they started the free space race really, before that it was very limited what you got in a free account. It is also not just web*mail)

I never use docs so cant tell if its good or not, but you cant really compare it to libreoffice/ms office - two different class of applications. most people do not think they can be used for the same work (though professionel work is fine, lots of it does fine in plain text). only you are insane enough to bring up the one-to-one.

But yeah, looking at it from your narrow view - the whole invention of the wheel was pretty useless, after all we can fly these days...

Re:fuck me (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46572191)

Docs was at least partly based on Google's acquisition of Upstartle, though Google have added substantially to it since. It isn't that unique though. MS Office Web-apps and others offer much of the same. Gmail was developed internally, but I would argue that the main driver for success was the marketing genius of offering 1 GB storage and large attachments at at time when others had like 2MB which was constant pain-point for users. And the invite-only launch, which not only generated interest and demand, but also helped to keep spam down.

Re: Office web apps and collaboration did not exis (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46574037)

... When Google Docs came out. It was the first office app suite to offer something new.

Re:fuck me (1)

fisted (2295862) | about 6 months ago | (#46572403)

Didn't they also invent HTML formulars and Text input fields? Pretty sure i've seen them at google for the first time

Re:fuck me (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 6 months ago | (#46574191)

I'm sorry, are you being serious or sarcastic? I'm guessing sarcastic, but it almost sounds serious

Re:fuck me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46572697)

If it wouldn't have been for GMail offering up tons of storage then it would have been a non-starter.
 
Is expanded storage of a web service now really what counts as innovation? Sure, their filing method is a bit original but it's hardly innovative. In fact, I'd say it was a step in the wrong direction. I can't imagine others didn't think of it and dismiss it as cumbersome because frankly it is cumbersome.
 
And Google Docs is not the first nor the best web based office suite.

Re:fuck me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46572143)

To tell you the truth Apple, Google and any other mega corps can all go fuck themselves with their corporate tracking^D^D^D "designer wear" devices. Whatever innovations they have created at the end it is not to benefit you or me but just to use us like the batteries in "The Matrix".

Re:fuck me (1)

mlw4428 (1029576) | about 6 months ago | (#46572727)

What exactly is wrong with Google+ aside from being late to the game? It brought profile control options not seen at Facebook at the time, Hangouts (not seen on Facebook), and other features that were either improved in G+ or introduced. As for the "acquired" thing, let's not forget that nearly every single piece of technology Apple has "invented" already existed in some form or fashion in academia circles years (or decades) before Apple combined them into a single device. Google "pinch-to-zoom". Oh sorry, maybe you can try to "Siri" that -- good luck.

Re:fuck me (1)

Phoeniyx (2751919) | about 6 months ago | (#46572433)

I do not want to fuck you. Unless you are a pretty girl that is over 21.

Re:fuck me (4, Funny)

ls671 (1122017) | about 6 months ago | (#46572451)

I am quite over 21 but I am still pretty. I am 78.

Interested?

Re:fuck me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46572631)

But are you a girl?

Re:fuck me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46573233)

But are you a girl?

fussy aint ya

Re:fuck me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46573473)

If you qualify as a pretty girl...

Re:fuck me (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 6 months ago | (#46574201)

I would really like for you to tell us you're serious.

I would really like to see a 78 year old person on slashdot, that'd make me feel better about my mid life crisis and my path going forward.

Re:fuck me (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 6 months ago | (#46572559)

I'm no fan of Apple, but they NEVER spied on people as their primary business model. Google are a fucking nest of spies, pardon my French. They once were the luminaries who pulled the world wide web from a mess of near unsearchable data into an ordered scalable whole. Then they bought Doubleclick, and Doubleclick blackened their hearts and swallowed them whole, from the inside out. RIP Google of old, and FOAD.

Re: fuck me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46572703)

Two words for you: iTunes, dickhead.

Re:fuck me (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 6 months ago | (#46573119)

If selling your search terms to advertisers were not in the business model, how much would you be willing to pay for Google? $50 a month? $100? Would you go back to 'looking things up' at libraries, as our ancestors did, or just stumbling around being wrong about basic facts most of the time?

Re:fuck me (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 6 months ago | (#46574359)

how much would you be willing to pay for Google?

How much does google search really make off me? I'd probably be willing to pay that in exchange for an ad free experience.

http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]

$30 per YEAR... $2.50 per month. Yeah, I'd pay that much.

And realistically, my own value is even less. I use search and maps daily, but I don't use google drive, or google apps, or hangouts. I watch stuff on youtube, but not daily. I have a gmail account, but don't use it much. (my android phone is connected to it for the play store, but i don't use it for email, contacts, or calendars, and its not even setup on my phone) I have yet to spend money in the app store.

And above all I practically never click on ads or sponsored links. If I paid google $1/per month, they'd probably be ahead on me. But yeah, if their average ad revenue per user is $29/year I'd still spring for that.

Re:fuck me (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about 6 months ago | (#46572969)

"Overpriced designer products that rely on being the "in thing" anyone?"

I suspect that I will not care any more about the "in thing" than I already do.

Re: fuck me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46573079)

"Ooooooooooo, Fashion! We are the goon squad and we're coming to town!"
(Bowie, Scary Monsters)

80% of market in terms of what? (3, Insightful)

captainpanic (1173915) | about 6 months ago | (#46572127)

Many people wear cheap sunglasses - I guess "80% of the eyewear market" is in terms of value, not volume, since 1 Ray-ban costs about as much as 100 cheap sunglasses?

Re:80% of market in terms of what? (1)

jonwil (467024) | about 6 months ago | (#46572149)

If you wear prescription glasses, the number is probably higher because very few people are going to buy expensive prescription lenses and put them into cheap frames.

Re:80% of market in terms of what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46572211)

Unless they are not that expensive prescription lenses

Re:80% of market in terms of what? (1)

Barny (103770) | about 6 months ago | (#46572375)

Not purchased prescription tinted lenses lately, have we?

Last price I got on a new script for mine was $300 for the glass and they would reuse my frames (yes, Rayban frames).

Re:80% of market in terms of what? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 6 months ago | (#46572675)

Did you, perchance, get the glass fabricated by the same entity that probed your eyes?

It is...remarkable... what this does to the price.

Re:80% of market in terms of what? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 6 months ago | (#46574297)

WTF!?!

I pay less than that for 2 pairs of transitions lenses and frames! I have to have non-toridal lenses because my eyes aren't the right physical shape so the top and bottom of my lenses have different refraction compared to the left and right sides.

You're getting raped if you're paying $300 for just a single pair of lenses. Not ripped off ... fucking RAPED.

Re:80% of market in terms of what? (1)

citizenr (871508) | about 6 months ago | (#46572359)

expensive lenses? oh, you live in US, land of health care for the rich, emergency rooms for the common folk

Re:80% of market in terms of what? (1)

jonwil (467024) | about 6 months ago | (#46572373)

No, I live in Australia where my last pair of prescription sunglasses cost a fortune, not all of which my private health fund Optical cover paid back.
I very nearly went with a pair of Ray-Ban frames actually but a different shop offered me a good deal.

Re:80% of market in terms of what? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 6 months ago | (#46574341)

Most of the people in the country can walk into walmart and get two pairs of decent glasses for $100, including the optometrist fee.

Mind you, some people have problems that the guy at walmart can't help. (I had to go to the Mayo clinic and have surgery just to get back to reasonable so they could try to put glasses on me, muscles around my eye are stupid and cause it to be misshaped, but now I can go to walmart if I choose :) but for the majority of the country with only minor vision problems, $100 and less than an hour and you've got glasses.

I'd wager the number of people in the country that aren't within reasonable distance of a walmart at this stage ... is probably as close to 0 as you can get for something like that, they are EVERYWHERE.

As I said, they can't deal with people who have more serious vision issues though where you need a more experienced doctor with better equipment.

Re:80% of market in terms of what? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 6 months ago | (#46572643)

Expensive lenses? sounds like someone doesn't know about Zenni optical. I refuse to buy my glasses from the optician. I get my prescription and then order them from the same place he orders them from.

Most expensive lenses I ever bought are on my face now. Nikon Eyes lenses with every single coating available. (Note: the anti dirt coatings last only 2 months, do not bother getting them.)

$60.00 for the lenses, $30 for the frames that have the magnetic sunglasses that match them perfectly.

Re:80% of market in terms of what? (1)

nemasu (1766860) | about 6 months ago | (#46572165)

Maybe they don't consider cheap sunglasses part of the eye wear market ... OR more likely there's so many different cheap sun glass makers they're too fragmented to own any decent amount of market share.

Re:80% of market in terms of what? (3, Informative)

nemasu (1766860) | about 6 months ago | (#46572171)

Never mind, this makes no sense. But this does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org] That is a loot of well known brands.

Re: 80% of market in terms of what? (5, Informative)

RocketSW (1447313) | about 6 months ago | (#46572313)

Luxoticca not only owns a wide range of premium and "budget" eyewear brands (prescription glasses and sunglasses), they also own LensCrafters. Pearle vision, sears optical, target optical, and Sunglass Hut to name a few. Additionally they own the vision insurance company EyeMed.

The word "monopoly" comes to mind.

There was a 60 minutes piece about this not too long ago:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g... [youtube.com]

Re: 80% of market in terms of what? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46572399)

Google getting in bed with Luxottica is probably about as close to being evil as I've considered from them, honestly. I don't care about the "I am a product" aspect of Google's business model, because it has never inconvenienced me and I don't feel like I have some magical nature that means I suffer for having this targeted to a profile of me that they've made. I like what Google does, it makes my life easier and even though they might not have the best usability in a lot of cases, it's acceptable.

But Luxottica are just plain bastards. Got an optical practice and want to sell Ray-Bans? Sure, just sell a bunch of crap you don't want, too. Want to have your own practice? Now you're competing with a vendor but on multiple levels. They're a bunch of monopolistic bastards, and Google just jumped into bed with the worst fucks in that industry. Thanks, Google.

Re: 80% of market in terms of what? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 6 months ago | (#46572683)

Well, if I had something that I wanted to sell; but didn't know if people wanted to buy, they sound like ideal company...

Re: 80% of market in terms of what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46572431)

They will fit right in with google then

Re: 80% of market in terms of what? (2)

haruchai (17472) | about 6 months ago | (#46572779)

I watched that recently and was astonished at their stranglehold on the market. Kudos to 60 Minutes for digging this up.

Re: 80% of market in terms of what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46574445)

Sadly, I've caught 60 Minutes "stretching the truth" so many times I pretty much assume anything they say is one sided and exaggerated into truthiness.

Re:80% of market in terms of what? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 6 months ago | (#46572625)

Only if you are dumb and buy them at a boutique. you can get RayBan at wholesale prices all over the place. go to Shen-Wa's upscale sunglasses emporium and try them on, then go order off of amazon.com or other places that don't sell them for the 3500% markup that is MSRP

Doubtful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46572745)

I'm pretty sure those are counterfeit. You can't buy RayBan's at wholesale prices because that would undercut the cost that Luxxotica gets via their outlets. They're subject to huge markup, but it's not anywhere close to 3500% last I checked. If you're buying them for such a low price, then chances are they're counterfeit.

They are grossly overpriced, but not by that much.

Re:80% of market in terms of what? (1)

CaptainLard (1902452) | about 6 months ago | (#46573289)

That would be 80% in terms of clear or tinted eye coverings secured by a frame resting on the nose and ears. Luxottica doesn't just own rayban. They own all the "designer" brands too. They also do the actual designing. Burberry, calvin klein, etc are all produced and designed by luxottica (albeit with some input from said brands). When Oakley resisted a luxottica buyout their stock plummeted, forcing them to sell. If I needed glasses I'd be concerned that my clear vision depends entirely on a single company based in Italy.

Oh boy! (1)

Chas (5144) | about 6 months ago | (#46572293)

So we can pay even MORE to be glassholes?

Pass.

Re:Oh boy! (2)

Joce640k (829181) | about 6 months ago | (#46572339)

...and how does Google dumping money into something make it un-doomed? It can still fail just as badly as before.

Re:Oh boy! (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 6 months ago | (#46574357)

Actually, if you think about it ... it makes perfect sense.

Glassholes are EXACTLY the type of people who wear shit like Ray Ban and Oakleys instead of the $20 pair at Walmart.

#irc.trroltalk.com (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46572347)

and as BSD sinks it a break, if I don't want t0 the project is in questions, then provide sodas, in ratio of 5 to Become an unwanted with procees and

Luxotica (3, Interesting)

bl968 (190792) | about 6 months ago | (#46572435)

I posted this story a few years ago about Luxotica...

What makes glasses so expensive? Oblong plastic lenses? Plastic and metal frames? No, we’re getting screwed!

Those of us who need prescription eyewear need prescription eyewear. Are you wearing yours to read this? Imagine if you weren’t. Imagine life without your glasses for a year, a week, an hour. Yet many health insurance plans, especially for the unemployed or self-employed, don’t cover them.

http://www.clarksvilleonline.c... [clarksvilleonline.com]

Re:Luxotica (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 6 months ago | (#46572975)

The reason most individual health insurance plans don't cover them is because the only people who would pay for such insurance are those who know they need glasses. Needing glasses (for the most part) isn't something that just appears out of no where. Nobody is going to pay for insurance that includes glasses if they don't need glasses.

Re:Luxotica (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46573147)

s/glasses/glucose meters/
Oh wait...

Re:Luxotica (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46573211)

I used an online glasses company for the last 8 years or so... they recently went out of business :(
They were great... all you had to do was get your prescription, put it in, and you could choose every aspect of your glasses... frame, lens type, coating, tinting etc. And they charged you based on the complexity of your prescription... more lens = more money.
Their average price was $19 for glasses approximately the same as what I had ben buying... maybe slightly worse on the frame quality ( they had a tendency to break after about 3 years or so, but I didn't care for $19! )

Re:Luxotica (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46574197)

I don't know who you were shopping with before, but I got my last pair of glasses at ZenniOptical for $25 shipped. My sunglasses I got from a traditional retailer because they're Raybans.

Luxury glassholes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46572487)

Now glassholes who get regularly beaten by angry people will fall to the ground with more style. They will be the most elegant patients in hospitals! Good for them.

Who cares what Scoble thinks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46572501)

He's the prick that slagged off the original Droid because he couldn't find the @ symbol and claimed you couldn't enter this character, clearly missing the dedicated key for it! All Scoble does it do social media rounds pushing his own PR for his crappy place-holder site.

Who likes wearing glasses? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46572511)

I can't see a significant demographic of people wanting to spend this amount of money to wear glasses. Usability/utility is going to be a far bigger issue than any of the potential technical or social problems. Contact lenses and laser eye surgery are around because most people would rather *not* wear glasses and most people only wear their sunglasses when they need to. Glasses are simply not convenient. I have't seen any features in Glass that's going to compel the masses to want spend this kind of cash to have these things on there head. Sure, there's probably a niche market and there will certainly be the tech gadget people, but that's all.

Re:Who likes wearing glasses? (1)

MrMickS (568778) | about 6 months ago | (#46572599)

I wear glasses to read, I'm wearing them now. I don't need to wear glasses for anything else yet. Casting my eyes around the office, over the glasses because they are distant, I can see a fair few people in glasses. So perhaps there is a market for glasses after all. Google Glass I can't see a use for though.

Re:Who likes wearing glasses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46572629)

Yeah, I was referring to Google Glass - not normal glasses. There's obviously a market for those (of which I am a consumer as well).

Re:Who likes wearing glasses? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 6 months ago | (#46572869)

Spectacles are often preferable to laser surgery and contacts if you need vision correction. No eyewear at all is still preferable for most if you need no correction, though. I'm not sure there's a huge market for frames that only exist to hold up a little screen. Frankly, if they're so committed to glasses-wearers, they should come up with a version with a universal mount and adjustable fitting to sit on ordinary frames.

That seems like the most obvious thing in the world, short of taking the idea and transferring it into something people don't mind wearing like a wristwatch.

Re:Who likes wearing glasses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46573231)

I prefer glasses over having shards of glass in my eye, or lasering the shit out of my eyes.

WTF? (1)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | about 6 months ago | (#46572523)

> The deal shows how serious Google is about Glass contrary to the skepticism raised by high-profiled users like Robert Scoble who spelled doom for the device.

How do you get from there to this? So they signed a deal with Ray Ban. So what? Does this suddenly mean Scoble has to publish a retraction?

More astroturfing. NSA and now this.

Re:WTF? (1)

Xest (935314) | about 6 months ago | (#46572583)

It's just confirmation that Scoble is still an irrelevant douche.

Slashdot needs this kind of reconfirmation every once in a while.

Re:WTF? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 6 months ago | (#46572657)

Scoble is irrelevant. he is as accurate as a random blogger.

Re:WTF? (1)

fermion (181285) | about 6 months ago | (#46573341)

These people control Sunglass hut. They not are able to integrate the glasses into current and future products, they are able to provide a retail channel to market and promote them. They are able to provide incentives to specifically push the products to customers. This solves a problem with the original Android phone, in which end users had no way of interacting with the physical phone. Most who bought it did so soly on the Google name.

Of course, at $1750, which is basically what they device with frames costs, it is going to be a hard sell. Persols of Maui Jim will run $300. Integrate the Google Glasses, and you end with $2000.

Ray Ban's next product (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46572607)

Pocket protectors and beanie hats to complement their Google Glass products.

NSA Spy Droid (1)

clarkw (155394) | about 6 months ago | (#46572609)

They want to deploy more spy droids. The spies can turn on your webcam now. I bet google glasses are tapped.

So (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 6 months ago | (#46572641)

Not just Glassholes, but stylish Glassholes.

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46572705)

Not just Glassholes, but stylish Glassholes.

Great, this means that Android users will become 'feckless hipsters' like many /.posters are so fond of accusing iOS users of being.

Yay! (3, Insightful)

Maury Markowitz (452832) | about 6 months ago | (#46572827)

So one near monopoly with 80% market share is getting together with another near monopoly with a 90% market share?

What could possibly go wrong?

Red Camera (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46572837)

Since they're partnering with Oakley, is there any change we could get Red camera integrated into their version?

Wow even the link is douchy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46573017)

Could the girl in the picture be any less enthusiastic? "I'm too hip to sit still for a camera... alll right... fine"

I will say one thing... it's a neat idea. It just needs about 2 generations to be useful. By generations I mean human generations.

I do think the Military will be a major buyer of these things though. In fact, the military is probably the only valid use for these things.

wait... (0)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 6 months ago | (#46573105)

I thought they DIDN'T want douchebags wearing their products?

Google Shades: no one can tell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46573329)

What if you want to record whoever/whatever you see and not get beaten up for it? Maybe they're planning a Glass model that looks just like regular sunglasses.

80% Market Share? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46573485)

Maybe it's sharply different outside the US, but this recent arcticle [washingtonpost.com] estimates Luxotica's US market share as only 40-50%

high prices (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46573637)

..."The Luxottica Group, the world's largest eyewear company (controlling 80% of the eyewear market). Luxottica owns Ray-Ban, Oakley, Vogue-Eyewear, Persol, Oliver Peoples, Alain Mikli. and Arnette"..

So this is why eye wear is so expensive?

I might get one.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 6 months ago | (#46573643)

.... but only when they can make one with a battery that actually lasts at least 12 hours, and in a form factor that doesn't make me look like I'm trying to look like I'm from some kind of 70's version of the 21st century or something.

I wear glasses already... if they can fit the technology into a form factor that does not substantially change the appearance of what I already wear on my face, I may be interested once they can improve the battery life.

I am not, however, interested in any way, shape or form in looking like Locutus of Borg.

Re:I might get one.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46573713)

Come on! Even in carnavals? Killer cosplay.

TROLl (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46573689)

Han3...Don't [goat.cx]

The Luxottica Group (2)

Larry_Dillon (20347) | about 6 months ago | (#46574021)

The Luxottica Group is the recognized leader in over priced eye-ware.

No thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46574079)

I'll hold off on wearing Glass until one can wear them and not have every hipster, homosexual, and school kid on the street come up to you and want to try them out.

Although, if I were a homosexual or a hipster, that sounds like a feature.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?