I remember the camera being the bit that got everyone the most skeeved out over Google Glass. Also it standing out so much made it too odd and obvious. These scan a lot more like plain old glasses.
Yeah, this has fewer sensors, but is 100% still a monitor-the-world-and-phone-home device. Glass delivered a lot of additional functionality via the camera and AR capabilities.
It was glib, but still- much of the utility is gone, leaving more or less just a monitoring device.
Yeah it removes a lot of the utility, though I'd say Glass wasn't an AR device really at least not in a real useful sense. To me AR requires placing the visuals tracked in the environment not just in a little display like Glass did.
He raises a good point though because even if it's not a product for some people, they will still have their data harvested without consent as a result of talking in proximity of a person wearing one such pair.
By the way, is there a gender-neutral third-person pronoun besides the singular "they"? It can get confusing to some people. "It" can probably get confusing too, and I think it is also considered rude to refer to people by "it". I have never used "it" to refer to people. Many languages have gender-neutral third-person personal pronouns. I wish English had something that is less ambiguous than "they" or "their" (I know, context!). Maybe I should just start using "s/he".
I hang out with a lot of queer/non-binary/agender/etc folks and "they" is generally the preferred choice for both people whose gender you don't know and for a lot of enbys. There is a very small set of agender people who would like to be called "it" but for the most part that's considered a dehumanizing insult, yeah - don't call anyone "it" unless that person has specifically said that's their preferred pronouns.
People have proposed [a bunch of gender-neutral pronouns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_pronoun#Alternati...) (scroll down a bit and you'll find a chart) but none of them have achieved sufficient usage to stop sounding kind of weird and funny to most English-speaking ears.
s/he will probably work for written text... until you end up in circles with enough people who prefer "they" for it to start being a problem. Maybe you never will, I dunno. If you're in a large software company on the West Coast you probably will.
edit: I guess the HN hive mind disagrees with my point. Just FYI if someone says they care about their privacy and don't want to use a product because of privacy concerns, and your counter argument is that they use some other product that has privacy concerns, that is a textbook example of a whataboutism
When your entire argument is based on a very basic, widely used logical fallacy no one is going to take it seriously. I understand the point you're trying to make, but that isn't what's being discussed
No, not at all. That's a straw man argument. I never said that the product has always-on data mining and you're attempting to use that to invalidate my initial comment. If you have any genuine, logical arguments let me know but you're just attacking a viewpoint you seem to disagree with using blatant fallacious questions and statements
If you're going to say I can't care about my privacy in relation to Alexa because of some other unrelated privacy concern then yes, it would be a whataboutism and I would call you out on it, as I would in any debate, because that is how civilized discourse works. If you have a genuine, logical argument I'd like to discuss. Unfortunately most people on this site seem to like downvoting relevant points they feel emotional about and arguing without actually making any effort to understand anyone else's point.
shouting "logical fallacy" is not how debate works.
using knowledge of fallacy to illustrate the underlying logical error in someones argument is how debate works. you should never actually need to reference a fallacy out loud during debate.
If there was more to your initial comment I could have said more, but you essentially said 'whatabaout you having a smartphone' and that was it. The sole argument was fallacious, and there was nothing more I could reply to...
I didnt say that. That was someone else. I think everyone else understood the implication of "but you already have a camera and microphone in your pocket, what additional privacy violation does this cause above and beyond everyone's phones." The poster likely thought it didnt need to be spelled out.
It absolutely is a whataboutism. I am talking about Amazon Echo glasses.
If I chose to use a smartphone that negates all other privacy concerns in my life? By carrying a smartphone I'm not allowed to care about my privacy?
It is a textbook definition of whataboutism. I bring up a privacy concern, and you say WHATABOUT YOUR SMARTPHONE
edit: I see you added this to your comment "You shouting whataboutism, and changing the subject to fallacies is more of a whataboutism." Although you are clearly very confused, because whataboutism is a logical fallacy.... I'm not changing the subject I was directly referring to the whataboutism fallacy, or more formally tu quoque
> involves charging your accuser with whatever it is you've just been accused of, rather than refuting the truth of the accusation
Thats not what just happened. "You accuser" didnt accuse you of being a privacy violation.
Smart Phone was brought up as an EXAMPLE of having a microphone and camera in your pocket, connected to the internet. It wasnt a change in subject from tracking devices.
>Although you are clearly very confused, because whataboutism is a logical fallacy....
I believe you are the confused one. You changed the subject to a fallacy discussion, by mentioning whataboutism. Its like changing the conversation to fruit by mentioning bananas. Obviously banana is a fruit.
>By carrying a smartphone I'm not allowed to care about my privacy?
to quote you "instead of just in the privacy of my own home." no one said you arent allowed to be concerned about privacy, but thats not what you said. the "hivemind" disagreed with your PREMISE that you arent currently tracked and that this product would suddenly create tracking ability that doesnt already exist. Its the "instead of just in my home" part people are taking issue with, because the "just in my home" reality doesnt exist.
>"Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument"
He is arguing that I should not be concerned with the "Echo Frames" if I use a smartphone because, as he stated, "A phone has more surveillance capabilities than anything announced today." It is a clear example of a whataboutism, as anyone who has done any epistemological study can clearly see. You pulling out a single line of the article in an attempt to discredit my argument is also fallacious, but I'm not going to continue to argue with people who aren't actually interested in having a reasonable discussion. Have a nice day
Which literally changes nothing. It's an item on your body with a microphone. So just like your phone, your headphones, etc. It's nothing even particularly new.
Google glass, at least, had a camera that significantly changed the privacy equation. These change nothing.
> But once I saw how smartphones were being designed as surveillance devices, I refused to play.
Get a FOSS Android phone. I have a OnePlus 7 Pro, previously a Galaxy S5 (the newer Galaxys also work as long as you don't get the US model); it runs LineageOS (stock Android). I chose not to install the Google Play packages. I get apps from F-Droid, which is a repository + package manager that builds and distributes FOSS applications.
It pings time.android.com for NTP, and I think it also uses a Google server to check when you're behind a captive portal WiFi. The default dialer/SMS/Contacts app have some options in the settings that will connect to proprietary APIs; I don't think they talk to Google but if you do then you can replace them with applications from F-Droid. But other than that it's 100% clean.
In the system settings I can completely block applications from using the network. LineageOS also adds Privacy Guard, which lets you deny permissions to applications. I need WhatsApp to communicate with some people, but I have denied it contact permissions so it gets fed an empty address book. I also have it set to require confirmation from me to use the camera or microphone.
I also installed AdAway from F-Droid, which is a DNS-based firewall like Pi-Hole. From F-Droid I also got Firefox with uBlock Origin, K-9 mail client, NewPipe as a YouTube frontent, OsmAnd+ for maps/navigation, DavDroid to sync contacts & calendar with Nextcloud, the Nextcloud Notes app for synced notes, and a OpenVPN client to prevent AT&T from spying on me and injecting tracking identifiers into my internet usage.
The only real threats in the system are the proprietary driver blobs and the risk of Google putting evil code into AOSP instead of limiting it to their proprietary services - but I hope the LineageOS team would be able to catch that.
I agree with you on the point you're getting at. Really anything that can be potentially logged due to a bug or accessed by a human may as well be considered the same as perpetual, in my opinion.
The difference is I trust Apple enough to turn off Siri on my phone and feel safe nothing is being broadcast online or stored locally for another app to access.
Is this guaranteed? Hell no. I also don't read the source code of every open source program I use (and even if I do I'm aware people exist much smarter than me who can obfuscate their malicious code).
Apple's business strategy, their history of actions, and their security system make me feel confident enough in _assuming_ my voice never reaches their servers and cannot be turned in by an app without explicit permissions. That last bit is also important. Like the Android Facebook background audio "bug", even if it is really a bug, to me it's no different.
Lastly even if Amazon were trustworthy about not listening when they say and not accessing voice data they shouldn't, I don't trust the platform very much. Quick idea, can you create a multi-turn alexa skill that after the first turn pretends Alexa is finished but it is actually actively recording and waiting to fake a response to "Alexa! <do other skill>"? Personally I don't know, don't have the source to check, and I wouldn't really believe any amazon engineer coming in here and saying "It's impossible to exploit". (Even if my 5 minute idea is impossible multiply that times thousands of malicious people spending much longer trying to exploit it)
edit: Don't mean to imply an Apple is impossible to hack or exploit. Just that they take a more active stance and have the history to back it up.
Perfect! Make sure you speak up so the AI can understand you and Amazon doesn't have to hire more poorly treated minimum wage employees to listen and figure out what you're saying
There's good software to extract voice from audio though! One time I had this webpage [0] open, forgot about it, until a colleague started a phone conversation from the other side of the open space, my laptop's mic picked it up and I got his sharp voice in my headphones.
Amazon doesn't use minimum wage employees for that, they use "contractors" and if they get them overseas they don't even have to pay them minimum wage!
>backdoor for police into your glasses like they did for amazon ring?
Citation needed, please. To the best of my knowledge there is no back door for police in ring gear. They can request video from users, but there is no requirement it be given up and the request can be denied.
> They can request video from users, but there is no requirement it be given up and the request can be denied.
If you refuse they have a deal with amazon to hand it over to them anyway.
"However, he noted, there is a workaround if a resident happens to reject a police request. If the community member doesn’t want to supply a Ring video that seems vital to a local law enforcement investigation, police can contact Amazon, which will then essentially “subpoena” the video.
“If we ask within 60 days of the recording and as long as it’s been uploaded to the cloud, then Ring can take it out of the cloud and send it to us legally so that we can use it as part of our investigation,” he said."
Police have also shown up at people's doors to intimidate them into handing over videos.
"Police have also told CNET in the past that they've shown up at known Ring users' doorsteps to request footage in person if the online requests don't pan out."
This shouldn't surprise you though. Basically any scrap of data you give to companies like apple google and amazon will be sucked up by the government at some level. Just the other day there was an article about how companies are hit with national security letters forbidding them from saying anything about the data collection going on, but we've known since Snowden's leaks that the NSA was collecting data from those companies already.
>“If we ask within 60 days of the recording and as long as it’s been uploaded to the cloud, then Ring can take it out of the cloud and send it to us legally so that we can use it as part of our investigation,” he said."
Just because someone says something doesn't mean it's true:
>"The reports that police can obtain any video from a Ring doorbell within 60 days is false," a spokesperson said. "Ring will not release customer information in response to government demands without a valid and binding legal demand properly served on us. Ring objects to overbroad or otherwise inappropriate demands as a matter of course. We are working with the Fresno County Sheriff's Office to ensure this is understood."
>"Police have also told CNET in the past that they've shown up at known Ring users' doorsteps to request footage in person if the online requests don't pan out."
This is shitty but not a back door, and it's also something police do if you have regular camera footage they think will help with an investigation too.
So the cop says they get whatever video they want no matter what, but Amazon's PR department says otherwise.
Maybe this was a NSL situation and the cop unintentionally spilled the beans, or maybe it's just weasel words by the amazon PR rep. Technically what they said specifically ("a valid and binding legal demand properly served on us") doesn't necessarily mean anything has to be signed off on by a judge. It just means the police have to make a legal and binding demand which shouldn't be a problem if handing that data over to police whenever they demand it is part of the binding terms of their contract with police.
I'll admit I'm not giving amazon or the police the benefit of the doubt here, but I also have zero reason to.
I think occam's razor here points towards the cop just having no clue how the system works. Amazon explicitly states they'll be reaching out to educate the dude on how it works, lol.
Exactly. My question for OP was not an attempt at being passive aggressive. I'm actually curious to know what he could do better in that product meeting as he stated. I'm just trying to think what would a better way for Amazon to bring Alexa to people in a more convenient way and can't think of anything else from what they are doing. Just curious to know what OP has to say.
I don't understand why it has to be glasses, when the important bit is just a microphone and speaker, and there is no display capability. Would something like AirPods work just as well? According to the website the glasses are light-weight, so they can't hide huge amounts of battery-storage in them either (unless they're not being entirely truthful).
edit: Okay, I just saw that they have Echo Buds too. So I guess this is only for people who already wear glasses, or prefer them for some reason.
Are these not just bluetooth headphones that have glasses?
"A single charge delivers a day of intermittent usage at 60% volume. Intermittent usage includes 40 Alexa interactions, 45 minutes of music, podcast or other audio playback, 20 minutes of phone calls, and 90 incoming notifications over a 14-hour period. Alternatively, a fully charged battery will last up to 3 hours of continuous audio playback at 60% volume. Actual battery life will vary depending on device settings, features utilized, environment and other factors. Fully charges in about 75 minutes."
They aren’t bone conducting. There are little drivers in the arms that are directed towards your ears. I’ve used bone conducting headphones, and these ain’t them!
That said, I was quite surprised at how good the sound was. I think the big problem is that the style options are quite limited. I really think there should be a partnership between Bose and Oakley... the later known for occasionally chunky styling and also modularity.
The idea is clearly that these appeal to the earliest adopters of smart glasses, and future versions will offer more functionality. There's also some value to having headphones that you never have to take out when having a conversation (I know that technically I don't have to with my AirPods, but there's some social signaling implicit to removing something from your ears).
I'm assuming this uses some sort of bone conduction to allow you to hear alexa without having to have earbuds, but still keeping it quiet to others. I wonder how well it's implemented.
I'm really conscious of sharing half my conversation with something. I don't even like talking on the phone in public. Not a fan of all these devices that are only powered by voice.
I'd rather they worked on making regular prescription eyeglasses and frames less expensive. That would help a lot more people and could still be profitable considering the huge markups on frames now.
To all the people who don't like/freak out about their data being harvested: would you use such a device, if it is completely open (both hardware and software) and the data is under your control?
I'd be much more inclined to, yes. The "Tony Stark" fantasy is a neat one - it's just heavily tempered by the reality of how much data and control we're letting out of our control.
we are letting out of our control because it's more convenient. Nowadays to truly own your data, you have to go to great lengths, but the solutions are arriving, but probably not for the mainstream consumer any time soon.
The only company I'd even think about maybe-sorta-kinda trusting with this kind of device would be Apple, and that's only because they've put a clear priority on making more and more stuff happen on-device and on not selling info on what happens off-device.
Definitely. If it's harvesting data exclusively for my own use, then it's working for me rather than against me, or at least rather than treating me as merely a vessel from which to collect data.
Devices such as these and "smart speakers" are sold at a loss because their lifetime value to the vendor is in gathering and analyzing data. They are attacked more emphatically than smart phones by privacy enthusiasts because they are so grossly unbalanced when comparing end-user value versus their cynical treatment of users' data interests. A smart phone can have its "smart agent" features disabled and remain a highly valuable device to its user. But if you take away the smart agent feature from these more recent "smart" devices and you're left with an inert brick.
It's unethical (and in many cases illegal) to record and analyze other people's conversations without consent. The intended usage is to only record your own speech but it inevitably leads to compromising others as well.
If I had control over the recordings, I could use it for "good" (useful to me) causes. But I can't make any guarantees as to what other people will do with conversations recorded in public.
1984-esque start-up idea: pay people pennies to forward your company the recordings of their surroundings. Make profiles and sell "anonimized" datasets of the interactions.
Yes, in a heartbeat. Privacy concerns aside (though that is a huge factor!), I tend to use more niche software that isn't supported at all by most of these "smart" devices. I have a phone running Ubuntu Touch and I've preordered the Librem 5, for example.
While I might be willing to try working on support for a new device provided its interfaces are documented, I have little desire to buy an expensive new device knowing I'd have to reverse-engineer the thing before being able to even use it.
If the sounds are never recorded it is better than 'recorded, but kept securely'. Open hardware/software still has bugs and storage/processing is a daunting problem.
Not really. Alexa doesn't solve a problem that I have. I generally question the usefulness of solutions like Alexa, Siri and Google Assistant. I'm sure they're useful to some people, but that pool of people seems to be rather small.
Speech as a means of controlling a device also seems down right stupid. Personally I don't see it being superior to a keyboard in any form. Certainly there are scenarios where voice commands are the better/safer choice, but again, those cases are extremely few and not something I encounter.
Honestly what's use case for Echo Frame, who seriously needs this?
What's the value proposition relative to the alternatives?
It is adding weight, complexity, and limiting choice to your eye-wear while effectively doing a similar thing to half a dozen wireless earbuds already on the market. It isn't really comparable to Google Glass, because Google Glass used projection onto the glasses themselves (creating a unique value).
Plus Amazon are trying to integrate with the US's predominant eye wear monopoly (via insurance/out-of-network frames) instead of just bypassing it and producing the lenses themselves. So you're paying $179.99 for empty frames and then untold amounts for the actual lenses, and trying to ingrate with an insurance system that's designed to benefit only Luxottica (via their stranglehold of both insurance companies AND lens producers).
> an insurance system that's designed to benefit only Luxottica (via their stranglehold of both insurance companies AND lens producers).
How is this a thing? Couldn't a startup come in and trounce them by offering $10 frames and lenses? The optics aren't that complicated, and frames are... plastic?
Startups do all the time via the internet, and they are growing, but the issue is getting involved with insurance companies and optometrists. It's not as complete a monopoly as one may be led to believe, but Luxottica still does control a large portion of the market.
No mention that Luxottica merged with Essilor a year or two back. Essilor are mainly lenses, but also have a range of premium and designer frame brands they bought. EssilorLuxottica has a huge portion of the resulting market. No idea if it gets near or past 80% now, but they're a $50bn company.
There are. From Zenni Optical (https://www.zennioptical.com/) you can order a pair of no-frill glasses for less than $10 if your prescription isn't too crazy (so you don't need high-index lens), and you're okay waiting for a couple of weeks for shipping.
However, it's not for everyone. For one, it's out of network for insurance providers, so you have to deal with paperwork yourself and the deductible is high. Also since they are online only, you have to adjust it yourself, which isn't always easy. And being online only means you can't try it on beforehand.
Because polarized lenses cost more to make. Which means Zinni has to pay more. Also, depending on the Rx and frame combination, they can be a little more complicated to manufacture as well.
If you have a reasonable Rx, Zinni are likely using finished lenses. Polarized have to been surfaced in the lab.
Also, in my experience Zenni doesn't necessarily make the polarized lenses to adequate tolerances. I ordered a pair of aviators with polarized lenses and there were such severe pressure points around the rim that it distorted the polarization across almost the entire surface of the lenses. It made the polarization coating basically worthless, and I had to return them to order a non-polarized pair for half the price.
Yes. If the lenses are too large (circumference) too much pressure will be placed on the lenses and they’ll do just as you describe. Certain materials (polycarbonate) will actually crack in the same situation.
>(so you don't need high-index lens)
Can you elaborate on this a bit? I've been thinking about getting my next pair or glasses from Zenni but I need high index lenses.
Enough people lack the financial literacy to understand the difference between risk and recurring costs.
Unfortunately, nobody wants to change this because insurers love charging premium rates for low risk recurring costs, providers love obscuring their prices, and consumers have come to demand their insurance covers “the basics”.
Because employers are subsidizing their employee's eye insurance, which is owned by Luxottica, and only usable at Luxottica's shops.
Ultimately even with insurance it is often cheaper to go outside of Luxottica's network, but many people don't even check and just assume that because they have reduced cost "insurance" that it will be cheaper to stay within Luxottica's spiderweb.
The way you solve this is to split up Luxottica via strong competition controls. Have one retail giant and one eye insurance company, not one monolith doing both.
The nice thing is, you still get big discounts on glasses with VSP. So when I buy absurdly expensive Bellinger carbon fiber frames, I get something like $120 off the top plus another 20% discount. And I'm not enriching Luxottica.
Zenni, eyebuydirect, goggle4u are all in this space and provide cheaper glasses. It seems like new ones keep starting, then slowly raise prices, leaving a gap for a new minimum cost provider.
Eyeglasses are an interesting example of a market failure - customers have been paying 10x the actual price for an important item, for 20+ years, and the market hasn't fixed it.
In Beijing I used to just head down to Panjiayuan Zhaojia Glasses City and get pairs for ~15 bucks. Rest your head on a machine that reads your prescription, pick out frames, bargain, 30 minutes later you have your glasses.
In the US glasses are medicalized, which hides the reality that glasses are really cheap and simple to make; for people without money this causes real harm.
can't remember the name of the place, but there's a low cost franchise place I went to a few years back. I had a prescription from eye exam, but they'd do those there too. I was in, chose some frames, had my stuff done in about 45 minutes. 3 frames - one was $$ because I chose rimless, but I got 2 backup pairs as well - total cost was a bit under $200. Had I not chosen rimless, and just got the 'regular' basic frames... would have been ~$60?.
They had a deal at that time too - $99 for exam and one frame/lens set, done in a couple hours.
They're fine - have worn every day for 3 years. No 'insurance' to worry about.
looking now I think it was eyemart express. I'd lost my glasses the day before and had a long trip coming up the next day (driving). I mostly use the glasses for driving, and couldn't find anyone who could necessarily guarantee same day service - had called some of the usual places that advertise that and got "well, maybe, we're backed up, call back this afternoon, etc". eyemart was, I think, relatively new at that location, so wasn't backed up.
Yup. My wife works at Zenni in the manufacturing and product. I even tagged along twice to Danyang (Spectacle City). It's hard for another company to come in offering $7 glasses including lenses to the US when you don't have the supply chain optimized (incl. in-house manufacturing of certain parts) and the economies of scale and relationships with suppliers.
And then to deal with the sheer operations (talking like ten thousand plus frames per day).
So you're paying $179.99 for empty frames and then untold amounts for the actual lenses
This seems like smartnes.
Pretty much every employer vision plan I've had for the last 20 years has given its employees $150 credit toward frames. So now employees can opt for paying $29.99 out-of-pocket for Echo frames, instead of $150+ out-of-pocket for frames, since any frames worth putting on your face cost $300+.
The last time I got new glasses (a few months ago), the cheapest pair of frames in the shop was $450.
Frames and lenses are always covered with separate co-pays/co-insurance at every employer I've ever had.
> The last time I got new glasses (a few months ago), the cheapest pair of frames in the shop was $450.
People need to avoid Luxottica's retailers. That price is absurd. The insurance isn't saving you a dime, the amount you're paying after insurance "savings" is likely higher than you would pay outright elsewhere.
In other countries that I've lived (where you pay cash, no insurance) frames top out at $150~ equivalent (for branded/designer) and start under $30.
My vision insurance is so good receptionists frequently comment on it, and even for me I have to pay a lot out of pocket if I want anything above the barebones frame and lens(scratch/smudge/shatter resistance, blue blocker, etc). After getting my PD measured I bought a few pairs off of Zenni(after seeing it mentioned hn comments) for like $20 or $30 each or something, with all the same extras.
Yes, their ultra cheap frames aren't as nice as the $180 but $30 after insurance ones, but now I have a pair of glasses with different characteristics in the car, in my home, in my office, and in my gym locker. Previously I would use basically one pair to multitask it all because of the price.
These frames sound outrageously expensive. I got mine from CostCo optical. Name brand, look decent, $149.99. Lens was $79.99 (+10 for the edge polish). I could even go for their own brand, although they didn't look as nice on my face. However did get one of their frames, but for sunglasses, where they worked much better: $49.99 for the frame.
There are online retailers with cheap, but also decent frames, for much less than what you are quoting.
It may be the case that you are much pickier than I am, or that the frames in the same price range don't fit you properly. But I have a feeling that you can get much better deals if you shop around. 450 for the cheapest frame is insane. I'll be re-evaluating the 'vision plan' I got in the open enrollment period, because the value proposition is not clear – they haven't even covered the costs at this lower price point.
The lenses are of identical quality. Both are outsourced to off-site machine cut lens factories and shipped to store.
I don't know where you got this odd idea about lens quality but it isn't factually supported. You can buy thinner and thicker lenses for additional cost, but both will be as accurate as the prescription is.
They are not necessarily the same if the discount store doesn’t offer the same options. A few cheap places don’t offer ultra high refractive index lenses. With the standard high index lens my lenses are very thick at the edges. Also, not all discount stores offer the same anti-scratch, anti-glare, or photochromic options.
The lenses that you get from a discounter will match your prescription, but expensive shops can have differentiating features.
As places move to outsourcing their lens production they can offer more products, since they aren't physically doing it in-store. The handful of discount "while you wait" places, do indeed, have more limited options but it is fast.
So is mine, and so are mine. The frame has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the lenses it contains, though, except inasmuch as it constrains their dimensions. And there's nothing in particular to say that you have to buy both in the same place, either.
I support your spending as much as you want on frames. I will tell you that I get amazing frames and lenses from Zenni. Their mid-range bifocal glasses (so I can see music on the stand) were better in every way for $90 than I got from my local optician (whom I like very much) for $1,000.
Most of the glasses I get from Zenni cost about $30.
Agreed. I get high index 1.74 by Seiko Optics. They're incredible with the most durable coating I've ever found.
People who've only gotten cheap glasses/lenses don't even know how important it is. I get my frames from DITA (www.dita.com) and they've lasted me 5+ years, never bend, warp, etc. Lenses get replaced every 2 years.
In practice different materials of the same index can have significantly different abberation. When I very recently got work-optimized glasses from a local optician, I could sit down and compare the materials they could get. One of the 1.60 index materials (Hoya, I think) was as good as thicker lenses while another (Essilor?) would have given me noticeable fringing on a monitor.
Now try to get a place like Zenni to so much as tell you what they're selling.
The general trend is that higher-index materials tend to have lower Abbe numbers, but there are exceptions. Polycarbonate is a cheap and popular mid-index material that's widely recommended on the basis of its mechanical strength. Its index of refraction is 1.59 and its Abbe number is 30, but there are numerous materials with a similar index of refraction around 1.6 and substantially better Abbe numbers of 41-42, or materials with a significantly higher index of refraction (1.67) and Abbe numbers that are slightly better than polycarbonate.
Zenni and EyeBuyDirect don't want to promote awareness of chromatic abberation, but they do make it easy to know whether you're ordering polycarbonate, and they both have 1/6/1.61 index materials with better Abbe numbers than polycarbonate. Zenni uses one of the Mitsui MR materials for their 1.6 lenses.
Yes, but aberration is different than the distortion and is caused by different refractive indexes at different wavelengths. I'm just talking about how it distorts your vision overall.
I have a complex prescription and I buy my glasses out of pocket from the web at around $15-20 a pair for both lenses and frames. My last order I bought 6 pair and a pair of sunglasses for less than $150 out of pocket. They may not last as long, but I've lost enough "expensive" frames to not care anymore. There's also the peace of mind of bringing 3 pairs of glasses on vacation and not caring if any of them get lost or broken.
Ah, this explains all the push back I got from Warby Parker about not providing a lens prescription. I'd already used Zenni before and gotten used to treating my glasses like what they are...a simple product with lens ground to a specification, not a potentially threatening medication.
Too bad their support couldn't explain why they were hassling me for a document they didn't need (except for in a legal sense).
Free markets and globalism are good for everyone except lawyers and doctors. The two professions most overrepresented in congress. Funny how that is huh?
I can't find the source, but I remember reading something along the lines that the whole "need prescription" was a bullshit ploy created by Luxottica Group to coerce people to going to LensCrafter.
I don’t like voice assistants and would never wear this, but I know I’m a minority as I’ve met many people who love their Echo speaker/dot/etc.
This lets you use Alexa without taking your phone out or wearing ear buds. If I liked Alexa and wore glasses, I could see myself being into this product. Even if I didn’t wear glasses, being a hardcore Alexa fan user might justify wearing “fake” glasses just for the convenience.
On Amazon’s end, it’s a smart move. If this product sticks in any way at all, they’ll have a platform to iterate on in the upcoming years - such as making more premium versions with cameras/display/AR/etc. Because this is such a basic product, it will likely not face the same kind of backlash as Google Glass did, and lets Amazon usher the age of face wearables in a much smoother way than Google’s attempt.
So again, I hate voice assistants with a passion and have no interest in this product, but I think this is a very clever product move from Amazon.
The value prop isn't for the consumer, it's for Amazon. Stuffing Alexa into anything and everything means more usage overall and a more attractive platform for companies looking to sell their wares.
"Amazon open-ear technology directs sound to your ears, letting you discreetly access Alexa. With your ears uncovered, you’ll be able to hear without blocking out the world around you."
I tried the Bose sunglasses and was stunned at how cool it was. Unfortunately they didn't let you use prescription lenses. This does. I will probably look into these over bone conduction headphones.
> Now you can hear notifications and alerts, turn on compatible smart lights, or call a friend, all without pulling out your phone. They’re designed to keep you in the moment—so you never miss one.
wow, I just had to laugh at this marketing-speak... "designed to keep you in the moment with even more distractions"
My regular glasses already keep me in the moment by forcing me to toggle a light switch with my finger. This marketing is such nonsense. They're really reaching to find some utility in something that provides very little.
Amazon has invested billions into the Alexa platform. It's staggering how many people work in the Alexa org.
Now they have to try and make some money from all this investment because nobody is replacing their echo every year. They've basically become a parody of themselves trying to dig themselves out of an 'AI' platform that never materialized into much more than hands free timer and audio player.
Their way to turn a profit is to shove it into every consumer device they can before consumers realize they don't need 15 different devices to turn on the lights.
It must drive Amazon and Apple crazy that each has what the other needs. Amazon has a voice assistant that works perfectly, but doesn't have a device ecosystem so it can't have access to any of the data it needs to be truly useful (your calendar, email, etc.). Apple has the device ecosystem, but Siri is hot garbage. It's an interesting dilemma.
Now they have to try and make some money from all this investment because nobody is replacing their echo every year.
I find it very hard to believe Amazon ever planned to make money on the hardware. Alexa is a convenient user interface for subscriptions to Amazon services (Music, Shopping, Fresh, etc). Putting the tech in to more things is an attempt to remove any barrier to buying other stuff from Amazon.
Regardless of the value proposition of this product, can we take a moment to appreciate that these glasses have way more going on in them while also costing about the same as luxottica frames?
Eventually this will evolve into a system where you can just think of what u want and an AI assistant will go and do it for you, optionally presenting results within your field of vision, or if you're not an oldtimer, directly to your brain
Something about half-wit apes using incredibly intelligent tech weirds me out.
On public transit, I see a lot of gormless slack-jaws hulking over tech that is mind-bogglingly complex. It feels like mixing eras. I can only imagine what it'll be like when the unmoving low-end of society gets access to tech like that, just to continue pursuing their trivial aspirations.
How do you believe you can identify that someone lacks intelligence by looking at them? I would think that would at least warrant a conversation first.
You can't. You also can't prove this isn't a hallucination, or that gravity will work tomorrow, or that you won't win the lottery.
But statistically speaking, an average person is smarter than half the people around them. An especially smart person is smarter than even more than that.
I'm by no means cruel to people I find unintelligent, but I that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to be tired of them, or that I have to do a little song and dance about how great they are just because I haven't done a thorough investigation into their mind yet.
> But statistically speaking, an average person is smarter than half the people around them.
This is assuming you believe that a global ordering of intelligence is possible. Personally, I disagree with this belief since there are many different dimensions of intelligence. (It also assumes whatever global measure of intelligence is used is normally distributed, but that's a separate consideration.)
I wasn't suggesting you were cruel, although I think it's unfortunate to applying the terms "gormless" or "slack-jawed" to a person one has never met.
So, what? Nobody is smarter than anybody? We're all just totally 100% equal in every way, except at the same time special and different?
You're trying to high-road this shit. You think you're smart, and I think you are too. We both could probably "guess" intelligence with reasonable accuracy based off looks alone. And even if not, it's a fact that even complete morons have access to high tech. For sure we've both seen them before.
It seems like maybe you're trying to avoid a slippery slope or something, but I think you're slipping the other direction. It's a razor-blade mountain pass, on one hand idiots deserve to be happy, but on the other they probably shouldn't be empowered.
Technology is power, and I'm tired of watching morons poke away at it, applying their force to the world, and ultimately slowing everything down because they push backwards.
I haven't met anyone I would label as a moron. I think if you're talking about a specific kinds of smarts, then sure, some have more than others. I don't think I'm particularly smart, but if you're speaking academically, I have performed better than average. However, I've met many people over the years who most would not consider "smart" by the traditional definition, but they exhibit other forms of intelligence that are often less appreciated.
I’d question why someone would get this over Alexa-powered earbuds. The obvious benefit is this is “always on” your face and earbuds that are only on X% of your waking day, but at least when you are alone it seems like most people would wear their buds/headphones enough of the day where no one would really feel like they would need it in their glasses over headphones. Headphones are also an easier sell to a wider population of users since they’re relevant to all vs a subset of people who need or want to wear glasses.
Maybe for people who already wear glasses, but are unable to wear earbuds?
Whenever AirPods come up in discussion, there are plenty of people on HN who say they don't fit right, or are worried they'll fall out while exercising. Maybe that's the audience?
Or maybe people who can't wear buds at work?
Yeah, I'm not really sure what huge market there is for this product.
I really don't understand why anyone would want any of these new Alexa products, your phone has all the same capabilities and it only takes an extra 4 seconds to pull your phone out and talk to Siri or Whichever other voice assistant you prefer.
Also, if you have the new Airpods they can already do 'Hey Siri' even with your phone in your pocket.
I suspect the draw here is intended to be for people who already wear glasses all the time, but I personally would trust Amazon exactly not at all with that kind of omnipresence.
like in video-games, latency kills the experience. You want to have the lower latency from where you want something (e.g. listen to music) and when it actually happens.
I’m not willing to carry around a corporation controlled microphone on my face.
The only voice recognition I am comfortable with would run on open source software on hardware I owned and physically possessed. I have looked and this doesn’t seem to really exist.
I have a pair. They’re pretty neat and my general take on them is that they show some great promise for the principle of the technology and North’s implementation works as advertised. I particularly appreciate the notifications and ability to make some quick text messages with it. I look at my phone a bit less now because of it, which is nice.
I’m mildly skeptical of the ring controller and I have had a couple of them break on me. However, their customer support has been great and they replaced them immediately with no problems whatsoever. Overall though it’s pretty solid and I sometimes catch myself missing the ring if I’m not wearing it, but that might just be my fidgeting habit.
North definitely sold me on the concept and I’m looking forward to more advanced implementations of the technology going forward. I’m not completely sure if I would recommend any of these glasses products coming out (like from Amazon or North or Facebook) to my friends at this time, but if you’re curious about them or if you like having the cutting edge, then they’re absolutely worth a look at least. If anything, the display will be a cool thing to experience if you haven’t seen it before.
Now, if I could just have a smartphone that wasn't a tracking device. That used a LEO network that couldn't geolocate phones accurately. And anonymous accounts, payable with untraceable digital cash.
But maybe I'd settle for a device that only connected via open WiFi, and routed traffic through VPNs and Tor.
"Eye"glasses which do nothing related to your eyes. At least Google Glass had a display.
Can I just have a display? Pretty please? Doesn't have to be high resolution, it doesn't have to have much intelligence other than connecting to my phone.
We just need magic-mirror-like glasses that don't look like you have been captured by a Borg cube.
a display seems like the only way to go with something like this. having a camera is too invasive but having only audio seems like it would be very limiting.
at least with a display you can have a conversation with someone while you glance at it but having to listen to 2 things at the same time isn't something most people can do
intel's glasses seemed like the best compromise but it's been years since they announced them so I'm guessing it was only some sort of concept
258 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 407 ms ] threadIt was glib, but still- much of the utility is gone, leaving more or less just a monitoring device.
By the way, is there a gender-neutral third-person pronoun besides the singular "they"? It can get confusing to some people. "It" can probably get confusing too, and I think it is also considered rude to refer to people by "it". I have never used "it" to refer to people. Many languages have gender-neutral third-person personal pronouns. I wish English had something that is less ambiguous than "they" or "their" (I know, context!). Maybe I should just start using "s/he".
People have proposed [a bunch of gender-neutral pronouns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_pronoun#Alternati...) (scroll down a bit and you'll find a chart) but none of them have achieved sufficient usage to stop sounding kind of weird and funny to most English-speaking ears.
s/he will probably work for written text... until you end up in circles with enough people who prefer "they" for it to start being a problem. Maybe you never will, I dunno. If you're in a large software company on the West Coast you probably will.
edit: I guess the HN hive mind disagrees with my point. Just FYI if someone says they care about their privacy and don't want to use a product because of privacy concerns, and your counter argument is that they use some other product that has privacy concerns, that is a textbook example of a whataboutism
Here's some reading:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/whataboutism-o...
When your entire argument is based on a very basic, widely used logical fallacy no one is going to take it seriously. I understand the point you're trying to make, but that isn't what's being discussed
Like assuming a product has always-on data mining?
" ... now my data can be harvested wherever I go instead of just in the privacy of my own home"
Two points:
1. How do you know what harvesting takes place? 2. IF it is occurring, how has the status quo changed?
The comment seem to make some strong assumptions about what these glasses are doing, without any substantiation.
I'm basing my assumption on the wealth of information already available about Amazon and Alexa
>2. IF it is occurring, how has the status quo changed?
As I already said, now it can occur in public rather than simply in people's homes, and affect bystanders who have not chosen to utilize alexa devices
Good chat.
using knowledge of fallacy to illustrate the underlying logical error in someones argument is how debate works. you should never actually need to reference a fallacy out loud during debate.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: you've done this so much elsewhere and broken the site guidelines so badly that we've banned your account. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21089074.
"You already have a tracking device that follows you around."
Thats not a change in subject, nor an accusation of guilt. It's not a whataboutism.
You shouting whataboutism, and changing the subject to fallacies is more of a whataboutism.
If I chose to use a smartphone that negates all other privacy concerns in my life? By carrying a smartphone I'm not allowed to care about my privacy?
It is a textbook definition of whataboutism. I bring up a privacy concern, and you say WHATABOUT YOUR SMARTPHONE
edit: I see you added this to your comment "You shouting whataboutism, and changing the subject to fallacies is more of a whataboutism." Although you are clearly very confused, because whataboutism is a logical fallacy.... I'm not changing the subject I was directly referring to the whataboutism fallacy, or more formally tu quoque
Thats not what just happened. "You accuser" didnt accuse you of being a privacy violation.
Smart Phone was brought up as an EXAMPLE of having a microphone and camera in your pocket, connected to the internet. It wasnt a change in subject from tracking devices.
>Although you are clearly very confused, because whataboutism is a logical fallacy....
I believe you are the confused one. You changed the subject to a fallacy discussion, by mentioning whataboutism. Its like changing the conversation to fruit by mentioning bananas. Obviously banana is a fruit.
>By carrying a smartphone I'm not allowed to care about my privacy?
to quote you "instead of just in the privacy of my own home." no one said you arent allowed to be concerned about privacy, but thats not what you said. the "hivemind" disagreed with your PREMISE that you arent currently tracked and that this product would suddenly create tracking ability that doesnt already exist. Its the "instead of just in my home" part people are taking issue with, because the "just in my home" reality doesnt exist.
He is arguing that I should not be concerned with the "Echo Frames" if I use a smartphone because, as he stated, "A phone has more surveillance capabilities than anything announced today." It is a clear example of a whataboutism, as anyone who has done any epistemological study can clearly see. You pulling out a single line of the article in an attempt to discredit my argument is also fallacious, but I'm not going to continue to argue with people who aren't actually interested in having a reasonable discussion. Have a nice day
Which literally changes nothing. It's an item on your body with a microphone. So just like your phone, your headphones, etc. It's nothing even particularly new.
Google glass, at least, had a camera that significantly changed the privacy equation. These change nothing.
Edit: I had a Qualcomm pdQ in 1999.[0] But once I saw how smartphones were being designed as surveillance devices, I refused to play.
0) http://archives.cnn.com/1999/TECH/ptech/12/03/qualcomm.pdq/i...
Get a FOSS Android phone. I have a OnePlus 7 Pro, previously a Galaxy S5 (the newer Galaxys also work as long as you don't get the US model); it runs LineageOS (stock Android). I chose not to install the Google Play packages. I get apps from F-Droid, which is a repository + package manager that builds and distributes FOSS applications.
It pings time.android.com for NTP, and I think it also uses a Google server to check when you're behind a captive portal WiFi. The default dialer/SMS/Contacts app have some options in the settings that will connect to proprietary APIs; I don't think they talk to Google but if you do then you can replace them with applications from F-Droid. But other than that it's 100% clean.
In the system settings I can completely block applications from using the network. LineageOS also adds Privacy Guard, which lets you deny permissions to applications. I need WhatsApp to communicate with some people, but I have denied it contact permissions so it gets fed an empty address book. I also have it set to require confirmation from me to use the camera or microphone.
I also installed AdAway from F-Droid, which is a DNS-based firewall like Pi-Hole. From F-Droid I also got Firefox with uBlock Origin, K-9 mail client, NewPipe as a YouTube frontent, OsmAnd+ for maps/navigation, DavDroid to sync contacts & calendar with Nextcloud, the Nextcloud Notes app for synced notes, and a OpenVPN client to prevent AT&T from spying on me and injecting tracking identifiers into my internet usage.
The only real threats in the system are the proprietary driver blobs and the risk of Google putting evil code into AOSP instead of limiting it to their proprietary services - but I hope the LineageOS team would be able to catch that.
Not one developed by Amazon. It's not fair at all to say a microphone in an iPhone is equivalent to a microphone in an Amazon device.
The difference is I trust Apple enough to turn off Siri on my phone and feel safe nothing is being broadcast online or stored locally for another app to access.
Is this guaranteed? Hell no. I also don't read the source code of every open source program I use (and even if I do I'm aware people exist much smarter than me who can obfuscate their malicious code).
Apple's business strategy, their history of actions, and their security system make me feel confident enough in _assuming_ my voice never reaches their servers and cannot be turned in by an app without explicit permissions. That last bit is also important. Like the Android Facebook background audio "bug", even if it is really a bug, to me it's no different.
Lastly even if Amazon were trustworthy about not listening when they say and not accessing voice data they shouldn't, I don't trust the platform very much. Quick idea, can you create a multi-turn alexa skill that after the first turn pretends Alexa is finished but it is actually actively recording and waiting to fake a response to "Alexa! <do other skill>"? Personally I don't know, don't have the source to check, and I wouldn't really believe any amazon engineer coming in here and saying "It's impossible to exploit". (Even if my 5 minute idea is impossible multiply that times thousands of malicious people spending much longer trying to exploit it)
edit: Don't mean to imply an Apple is impossible to hack or exploit. Just that they take a more active stance and have the history to back it up.
the NSA don't need to hack them... they can just ask (they did).
what we need is true e2e encryption ...
[0]: https://people.xiph.org/~jm/demo/rnnoise/
Citation needed, please. To the best of my knowledge there is no back door for police in ring gear. They can request video from users, but there is no requirement it be given up and the request can be denied.
If you refuse they have a deal with amazon to hand it over to them anyway.
"However, he noted, there is a workaround if a resident happens to reject a police request. If the community member doesn’t want to supply a Ring video that seems vital to a local law enforcement investigation, police can contact Amazon, which will then essentially “subpoena” the video.
“If we ask within 60 days of the recording and as long as it’s been uploaded to the cloud, then Ring can take it out of the cloud and send it to us legally so that we can use it as part of our investigation,” he said."
source: https://www.govtech.com/security/Amazons-Ring-Video-Camera-A...
Amazon can pretty much do whatever they want with your video feed including publish views from your doorstep on social media without your permission: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/daveyalba/amazon-ring-d...
Police have also shown up at people's doors to intimidate them into handing over videos.
"Police have also told CNET in the past that they've shown up at known Ring users' doorsteps to request footage in person if the online requests don't pan out."
source: https://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-ring-wants-police-to-keep-t...
This shouldn't surprise you though. Basically any scrap of data you give to companies like apple google and amazon will be sucked up by the government at some level. Just the other day there was an article about how companies are hit with national security letters forbidding them from saying anything about the data collection going on, but we've known since Snowden's leaks that the NSA was collecting data from those companies already.
Just because someone says something doesn't mean it's true:
>"The reports that police can obtain any video from a Ring doorbell within 60 days is false," a spokesperson said. "Ring will not release customer information in response to government demands without a valid and binding legal demand properly served on us. Ring objects to overbroad or otherwise inappropriate demands as a matter of course. We are working with the Fresno County Sheriff's Office to ensure this is understood."
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/police-can-get-y...
>"Police have also told CNET in the past that they've shown up at known Ring users' doorsteps to request footage in person if the online requests don't pan out."
This is shitty but not a back door, and it's also something police do if you have regular camera footage they think will help with an investigation too.
Maybe this was a NSL situation and the cop unintentionally spilled the beans, or maybe it's just weasel words by the amazon PR rep. Technically what they said specifically ("a valid and binding legal demand properly served on us") doesn't necessarily mean anything has to be signed off on by a judge. It just means the police have to make a legal and binding demand which shouldn't be a problem if handing that data over to police whenever they demand it is part of the binding terms of their contract with police.
I'll admit I'm not giving amazon or the police the benefit of the doubt here, but I also have zero reason to.
The problem with Google glass was just the camera! We can do it better!
A set of Apple's AirPods do everything this can do, far less obtrusively, and cheaper even.
2) Amazon also released earbuds.
edit: Okay, I just saw that they have Echo Buds too. So I guess this is only for people who already wear glasses, or prefer them for some reason.
"A single charge delivers a day of intermittent usage at 60% volume. Intermittent usage includes 40 Alexa interactions, 45 minutes of music, podcast or other audio playback, 20 minutes of phone calls, and 90 incoming notifications over a 14-hour period. Alternatively, a fully charged battery will last up to 3 hours of continuous audio playback at 60% volume. Actual battery life will vary depending on device settings, features utilized, environment and other factors. Fully charges in about 75 minutes."
Personally, I'm happy wearing an Apple Watch, overlooking the fact that Siri needs a lot of work.
That said, I was quite surprised at how good the sound was. I think the big problem is that the style options are quite limited. I really think there should be a partnership between Bose and Oakley... the later known for occasionally chunky styling and also modularity.
I really wish Google Glass had been a success.
Unfortunately the source code disappeared from thingiverse...
The only company I'd even think about maybe-sorta-kinda trusting with this kind of device would be Apple, and that's only because they've put a clear priority on making more and more stuff happen on-device and on not selling info on what happens off-device.
Devices such as these and "smart speakers" are sold at a loss because their lifetime value to the vendor is in gathering and analyzing data. They are attacked more emphatically than smart phones by privacy enthusiasts because they are so grossly unbalanced when comparing end-user value versus their cynical treatment of users' data interests. A smart phone can have its "smart agent" features disabled and remain a highly valuable device to its user. But if you take away the smart agent feature from these more recent "smart" devices and you're left with an inert brick.
It's unethical (and in many cases illegal) to record and analyze other people's conversations without consent. The intended usage is to only record your own speech but it inevitably leads to compromising others as well.
If I had control over the recordings, I could use it for "good" (useful to me) causes. But I can't make any guarantees as to what other people will do with conversations recorded in public.
1984-esque start-up idea: pay people pennies to forward your company the recordings of their surroundings. Make profiles and sell "anonimized" datasets of the interactions.
While I might be willing to try working on support for a new device provided its interfaces are documented, I have little desire to buy an expensive new device knowing I'd have to reverse-engineer the thing before being able to even use it.
Speech as a means of controlling a device also seems down right stupid. Personally I don't see it being superior to a keyboard in any form. Certainly there are scenarios where voice commands are the better/safer choice, but again, those cases are extremely few and not something I encounter.
Honestly what's use case for Echo Frame, who seriously needs this?
It is adding weight, complexity, and limiting choice to your eye-wear while effectively doing a similar thing to half a dozen wireless earbuds already on the market. It isn't really comparable to Google Glass, because Google Glass used projection onto the glasses themselves (creating a unique value).
Plus Amazon are trying to integrate with the US's predominant eye wear monopoly (via insurance/out-of-network frames) instead of just bypassing it and producing the lenses themselves. So you're paying $179.99 for empty frames and then untold amounts for the actual lenses, and trying to ingrate with an insurance system that's designed to benefit only Luxottica (via their stranglehold of both insurance companies AND lens producers).
> an insurance system that's designed to benefit only Luxottica (via their stranglehold of both insurance companies AND lens producers).
How is this a thing? Couldn't a startup come in and trounce them by offering $10 frames and lenses? The optics aren't that complicated, and frames are... plastic?
This also already exists with companies like zenni optical.
See https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-luxottica-own-80-of-t...
No mention that Luxottica merged with Essilor a year or two back. Essilor are mainly lenses, but also have a range of premium and designer frame brands they bought. EssilorLuxottica has a huge portion of the resulting market. No idea if it gets near or past 80% now, but they're a $50bn company.
However, it's not for everyone. For one, it's out of network for insurance providers, so you have to deal with paperwork yourself and the deductible is high. Also since they are online only, you have to adjust it yourself, which isn't always easy. And being online only means you can't try it on beforehand.
If you have a reasonable Rx, Zinni are likely using finished lenses. Polarized have to been surfaced in the lab.
You can get polarized glasses from Amazon for $20.
Zenni gets you in the door with a low base price then slams you with the add ons.
I actually got a pair of prescription tinted (as in sunglass tint) aviator high-index frames w/ lenses for about $110.
There was a site, myopticalshop.com that could do high-index rimless for $150, I haven’t checked in awhile, though.
[edit]
So, the rimless frames are $50 and 1.74 index lenses are an additional $129.
Unfortunately, nobody wants to change this because insurers love charging premium rates for low risk recurring costs, providers love obscuring their prices, and consumers have come to demand their insurance covers “the basics”.
Ultimately even with insurance it is often cheaper to go outside of Luxottica's network, but many people don't even check and just assume that because they have reduced cost "insurance" that it will be cheaper to stay within Luxottica's spiderweb.
The way you solve this is to split up Luxottica via strong competition controls. Have one retail giant and one eye insurance company, not one monolith doing both.
Luxottica owns EyeMed, which isn't VSP.
Luxottica just purchased Essilor -- so, now, one company handles the insurance, frames, and lenses...turning it into a bigger monster.
Eyeglasses are an interesting example of a market failure - customers have been paying 10x the actual price for an important item, for 20+ years, and the market hasn't fixed it.
In Beijing I used to just head down to Panjiayuan Zhaojia Glasses City and get pairs for ~15 bucks. Rest your head on a machine that reads your prescription, pick out frames, bargain, 30 minutes later you have your glasses.
In the US glasses are medicalized, which hides the reality that glasses are really cheap and simple to make; for people without money this causes real harm.
They had a deal at that time too - $99 for exam and one frame/lens set, done in a couple hours.
They're fine - have worn every day for 3 years. No 'insurance' to worry about.
And then to deal with the sheer operations (talking like ten thousand plus frames per day).
This seems like smartnes.
Pretty much every employer vision plan I've had for the last 20 years has given its employees $150 credit toward frames. So now employees can opt for paying $29.99 out-of-pocket for Echo frames, instead of $150+ out-of-pocket for frames, since any frames worth putting on your face cost $300+.
The last time I got new glasses (a few months ago), the cheapest pair of frames in the shop was $450.
Frames and lenses are always covered with separate co-pays/co-insurance at every employer I've ever had.
People need to avoid Luxottica's retailers. That price is absurd. The insurance isn't saving you a dime, the amount you're paying after insurance "savings" is likely higher than you would pay outright elsewhere.
In other countries that I've lived (where you pay cash, no insurance) frames top out at $150~ equivalent (for branded/designer) and start under $30.
Yes, their ultra cheap frames aren't as nice as the $180 but $30 after insurance ones, but now I have a pair of glasses with different characteristics in the car, in my home, in my office, and in my gym locker. Previously I would use basically one pair to multitask it all because of the price.
I'm reaching this conclusion too.
There are online retailers with cheap, but also decent frames, for much less than what you are quoting.
It may be the case that you are much pickier than I am, or that the frames in the same price range don't fit you properly. But I have a feeling that you can get much better deals if you shop around. 450 for the cheapest frame is insane. I'll be re-evaluating the 'vision plan' I got in the open enrollment period, because the value proposition is not clear – they haven't even covered the costs at this lower price point.
I have a difficult prescription and my eyes are very important to me. I can't trust them to discounters.
I don't know where you got this odd idea about lens quality but it isn't factually supported. You can buy thinner and thicker lenses for additional cost, but both will be as accurate as the prescription is.
The lenses that you get from a discounter will match your prescription, but expensive shops can have differentiating features.
Most of the glasses I get from Zenni cost about $30.
People who've only gotten cheap glasses/lenses don't even know how important it is. I get my frames from DITA (www.dita.com) and they've lasted me 5+ years, never bend, warp, etc. Lenses get replaced every 2 years.
Yes, for 2-3% of customers or something that may be relevant (strong enough prescriptions at the tail of the distribution or using glass).
In practice different materials of the same index can have significantly different abberation. When I very recently got work-optimized glasses from a local optician, I could sit down and compare the materials they could get. One of the 1.60 index materials (Hoya, I think) was as good as thicker lenses while another (Essilor?) would have given me noticeable fringing on a monitor.
Now try to get a place like Zenni to so much as tell you what they're selling.
The general trend is that higher-index materials tend to have lower Abbe numbers, but there are exceptions. Polycarbonate is a cheap and popular mid-index material that's widely recommended on the basis of its mechanical strength. Its index of refraction is 1.59 and its Abbe number is 30, but there are numerous materials with a similar index of refraction around 1.6 and substantially better Abbe numbers of 41-42, or materials with a significantly higher index of refraction (1.67) and Abbe numbers that are slightly better than polycarbonate.
Zenni and EyeBuyDirect don't want to promote awareness of chromatic abberation, but they do make it easy to know whether you're ordering polycarbonate, and they both have 1/6/1.61 index materials with better Abbe numbers than polycarbonate. Zenni uses one of the Mitsui MR materials for their 1.6 lenses.
Too bad their support couldn't explain why they were hassling me for a document they didn't need (except for in a legal sense).
Zenni also requires an up to date prescription.
No they don't. You just have to enter the numbers.
This lets you use Alexa without taking your phone out or wearing ear buds. If I liked Alexa and wore glasses, I could see myself being into this product. Even if I didn’t wear glasses, being a hardcore Alexa fan user might justify wearing “fake” glasses just for the convenience.
On Amazon’s end, it’s a smart move. If this product sticks in any way at all, they’ll have a platform to iterate on in the upcoming years - such as making more premium versions with cameras/display/AR/etc. Because this is such a basic product, it will likely not face the same kind of backlash as Google Glass did, and lets Amazon usher the age of face wearables in a much smoother way than Google’s attempt.
So again, I hate voice assistants with a passion and have no interest in this product, but I think this is a very clever product move from Amazon.
Whether you like it or not you will be in their product if people are walking around in public or at work while wearing these. Isn't the future great?
"Amazon open-ear technology directs sound to your ears, letting you discreetly access Alexa. With your ears uncovered, you’ll be able to hear without blocking out the world around you."
If I have to insert earbuds to talk to Alexa, then I could just bring up my entire phone.
wow, I just had to laugh at this marketing-speak... "designed to keep you in the moment with even more distractions"
Now they have to try and make some money from all this investment because nobody is replacing their echo every year. They've basically become a parody of themselves trying to dig themselves out of an 'AI' platform that never materialized into much more than hands free timer and audio player.
Their way to turn a profit is to shove it into every consumer device they can before consumers realize they don't need 15 different devices to turn on the lights.
I find it very hard to believe Amazon ever planned to make money on the hardware. Alexa is a convenient user interface for subscriptions to Amazon services (Music, Shopping, Fresh, etc). Putting the tech in to more things is an attempt to remove any barrier to buying other stuff from Amazon.
> And with no camera or display, you stay in the moment.
What a racket
On public transit, I see a lot of gormless slack-jaws hulking over tech that is mind-bogglingly complex. It feels like mixing eras. I can only imagine what it'll be like when the unmoving low-end of society gets access to tech like that, just to continue pursuing their trivial aspirations.
But statistically speaking, an average person is smarter than half the people around them. An especially smart person is smarter than even more than that.
I'm by no means cruel to people I find unintelligent, but I that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to be tired of them, or that I have to do a little song and dance about how great they are just because I haven't done a thorough investigation into their mind yet.
This is assuming you believe that a global ordering of intelligence is possible. Personally, I disagree with this belief since there are many different dimensions of intelligence. (It also assumes whatever global measure of intelligence is used is normally distributed, but that's a separate consideration.)
I wasn't suggesting you were cruel, although I think it's unfortunate to applying the terms "gormless" or "slack-jawed" to a person one has never met.
You're trying to high-road this shit. You think you're smart, and I think you are too. We both could probably "guess" intelligence with reasonable accuracy based off looks alone. And even if not, it's a fact that even complete morons have access to high tech. For sure we've both seen them before.
It seems like maybe you're trying to avoid a slippery slope or something, but I think you're slipping the other direction. It's a razor-blade mountain pass, on one hand idiots deserve to be happy, but on the other they probably shouldn't be empowered.
Technology is power, and I'm tired of watching morons poke away at it, applying their force to the world, and ultimately slowing everything down because they push backwards.
I wish that instead of being financed by surveillance, you could buy an alexa/google assistant/siri subscription.
Bad: E. Choli, Echocentric, Echoterrorist, Echromancer, Echoroomer, Echommercial, Echo-kroach, Echonvict
Whenever AirPods come up in discussion, there are plenty of people on HN who say they don't fit right, or are worried they'll fall out while exercising. Maybe that's the audience?
Or maybe people who can't wear buds at work?
Yeah, I'm not really sure what huge market there is for this product.
I suspect the draw here is intended to be for people who already wear glasses all the time, but I personally would trust Amazon exactly not at all with that kind of omnipresence.
The only voice recognition I am comfortable with would run on open source software on hardware I owned and physically possessed. I have looked and this doesn’t seem to really exist.
I’m mildly skeptical of the ring controller and I have had a couple of them break on me. However, their customer support has been great and they replaced them immediately with no problems whatsoever. Overall though it’s pretty solid and I sometimes catch myself missing the ring if I’m not wearing it, but that might just be my fidgeting habit.
North definitely sold me on the concept and I’m looking forward to more advanced implementations of the technology going forward. I’m not completely sure if I would recommend any of these glasses products coming out (like from Amazon or North or Facebook) to my friends at this time, but if you’re curious about them or if you like having the cutting edge, then they’re absolutely worth a look at least. If anything, the display will be a cool thing to experience if you haven’t seen it before.
Now, if I could just have a smartphone that wasn't a tracking device. That used a LEO network that couldn't geolocate phones accurately. And anonymous accounts, payable with untraceable digital cash.
But maybe I'd settle for a device that only connected via open WiFi, and routed traffic through VPNs and Tor.
Can I just have a display? Pretty please? Doesn't have to be high resolution, it doesn't have to have much intelligence other than connecting to my phone.
We just need magic-mirror-like glasses that don't look like you have been captured by a Borg cube.
at least with a display you can have a conversation with someone while you glance at it but having to listen to 2 things at the same time isn't something most people can do
intel's glasses seemed like the best compromise but it's been years since they announced them so I'm guessing it was only some sort of concept