Google Glass Signs Deal With Ray Ban's Parent Company

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Glass Signs Deal With Ray Ban's Parent Company

Posted by Unknown on Monday March 24, 2014 @09:01PM from the you're-not-cool-enough dept.

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."

78 of 125 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

fuck me by Chrisq · 2014-03-24 21:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

At this rate Google will be the new Apple. Overpriced designer products that rely on being the "in thing" anyone?
1. Re:fuck me by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-24 21:16 · Score: 1
  
  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.
2. Re:fuck me by ketomax · 2014-03-24 21:21 · Score: 1
  
  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?
3. Re:fuck me by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-24 21:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
4. Re:fuck me by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-24 21:55 · Score: 1
  
  The iPhone UI was rather good, and was Apple's last showing of what it did really well.
5. Re:fuck me by LordThyGod · 2014-03-24 22:15 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  The portability, sharing and collaboration of Gdocs is light years ahead of the others. Nobody I know gives a rats ass about "professional" editing.
6. Re:fuck me by Barny · 2014-03-24 22:39 · Score: 1
  
  It has the best and most important feature over MS Office.
  It is free.
  
  --
  ...
  /me sighs
7. Re:fuck me by fisted · 2014-03-24 22:57 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't they also invent HTML formulars and Text input fields? Pretty sure i've seen them at google for the first time
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
8. Re:fuck me by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-24 23:00 · Score: 1
  
  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...
9. Re:fuck me by Phoeniyx · 2014-03-24 23:03 · Score: 1
  
  I do not want to fuck you. Unless you are a pretty girl that is over 21.
10. Re:fuck me by ls671 · 2014-03-24 23:09 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I am quite over 21 but I am still pretty. I am 78.
  Interested?
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
11. Re:fuck me by Barny · 2014-03-24 23:32 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  ...
  /me sighs
12. Re:fuck me by martin-boundary · 2014-03-24 23:36 · Score: 1
  
  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.
13. Re:fuck me by mlw4428 · 2014-03-25 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  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.
14. Re:fuck me by Savage-Rabbit · 2014-03-25 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  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. 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.
  
  --
  Only to idiots, are orders laws.
  -- Henning von Tresckow
15. Re:fuck me by Savage-Rabbit · 2014-03-25 00:32 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Only to idiots, are orders laws.
  -- Henning von Tresckow
16. Re:fuck me by Maury+Markowitz · 2014-03-25 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  > 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.
17. Re:fuck me by LoRdTAW · 2014-03-25 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  "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.
18. Re:fuck me by Applehu+Akbar · 2014-03-25 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  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?
19. Re:fuck me by postbigbang · 2014-03-25 01:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
20. Re:fuck me by RabidReindeer · 2014-03-25 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  > 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.
21. Re:fuck me by RabidReindeer · 2014-03-25 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  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.
22. Re:fuck me by BitZtream · 2014-03-25 03:17 · Score: 2
  
  Thats because nobody you know does anything of importance, and thats really sad in this day and age.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
23. Re:fuck me by BitZtream · 2014-03-25 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
24. Re:fuck me by BitZtream · 2014-03-25 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry, are you being serious or sarcastic? I'm guessing sarcastic, but it almost sounds serious
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
25. Re:fuck me by BitZtream · 2014-03-25 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
26. Re:fuck me by vux984 · 2014-03-25 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  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...
  $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.
27. Re:fuck me by RabidReindeer · 2014-03-25 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  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.
28. Re:fuck me by fenux · 2014-03-25 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, The original Android company had two phones in development: The sooner and The dream. The sooner was more blackberry like with a physical keyboard, the dream was well, the one you call the redesign. (first artice I found: http://bgr.com/2013/12/20/ipho...) But don't let facts distract you.
29. Re:fuck me by LordThyGod · 2014-03-25 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Nonsense. Actually I was thinking in terms of sharing information and real time editing and collaboration. Those are the big advantages. We moved past that static document thing a while back. Emailing spreadsheets or docs is 1990's technology. Its the 90's equivalent of "sneaker net" at that, for people that haven't figured out there's a better way to share information. How do you guys with all that "technical knowledge" have multiple people in multiple locations edit the same file at the same time? I hope you don't use email for that too. That would suck from both productivity and data integrity standpoints.
30. Re:fuck me by timmyf2371 · 2014-03-25 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  Depends how you define free.
  When I'm stuck on a complex Excel or Access issue (typically involving a complex formula or macro), most of the time there is a forum thread where someone has solved the problem already and I can learn from this and integrate it into my formula or code.
  The same cannot be said of Google Docs and as my time is not free, the cost of MS Office suddenly looks a lot more appealing.
  
  --
  
  Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
31. Re:fuck me by aliquis · 2014-03-26 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't they also invent HTML formulars and Text input fields? Pretty sure i've seen them at google for the first time
  Did Apple intervent the operating-system, the network, programming, tablets, the smartphone, the mp3-player, high resolution screens, media players, wifi access points, optical audio transfer, .. ?
32. Re:fuck me by aliquis · 2014-03-26 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  Fuck it.. invent =P
33. Re:fuck me by fenux · 2014-03-26 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I know, Google hardware and combined software kind of allows me more privacy/freedom than other mobile operating systems/hardware. I don't think it is fair to include the vast data they have when talking about how invasive they are. Other companies (even small ones) try worse things (uploading all my contacts without asking/going through sms's/selling my banking information/....). But I grant you that we are indeed in a dead spiral when it comes to privacy.
34. Re:fuck me by fisted · 2014-03-26 22:15 · Score: 1
  
  Sounding serious is how to play sarcasm well :). In related news, pretty sure google invented sarcasm, too.
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
35. Re:fuck me by martin-boundary · 2014-03-28 21:07 · Score: 1
  
  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?
  
  About 1/3rd of my internet bill, eg $20 per month. Lots of telecoms companies can survive on that amount. But given that I've been around the internet before Google even existed, I'm perfectly capable of imagining alternatives that don't require paying Google $100 to come up with products and services I don't use.
80% of market in terms of what? by captainpanic · 2014-03-24 21:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?
1. Re:80% of market in terms of what? by jonwil · 2014-03-24 21:23 · Score: 1
  
  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.
2. Re:80% of market in terms of what? by nemasu · 2014-03-24 21:26 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  I made an app! Shoutium
3. Re:80% of market in terms of what? by nemasu · 2014-03-24 21:30 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Never mind, this makes no sense. But this does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... That is a loot of well known brands.
  
  --
  I made an app! Shoutium
4. Re: 80% of market in terms of what? by RocketSW · 2014-03-24 22:31 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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...
5. Re:80% of market in terms of what? by citizenr · 2014-03-24 22:43 · Score: 1
  
  expensive lenses? oh, you live in US, land of health care for the rich, emergency rooms for the common folk
  
  --
  Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
6. Re:80% of market in terms of what? by jonwil · 2014-03-24 22:48 · Score: 1
  
  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.
7. Re:80% of market in terms of what? by Barny · 2014-03-24 22:48 · Score: 1
  
  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).
  
  --
  ...
  /me sighs
8. Re: 80% of market in terms of what? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-24 22:56 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
9. Re:80% of market in terms of what? by Lumpy · 2014-03-24 23:52 · Score: 1
  
  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
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
10. Re:80% of market in terms of what? by Lumpy · 2014-03-24 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
11. Re:80% of market in terms of what? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2014-03-25 00:01 · Score: 1
  
  Did you, perchance, get the glass fabricated by the same entity that probed your eyes?
  
  It is...remarkable... what this does to the price.
12. Re: 80% of market in terms of what? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2014-03-25 00:04 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if I had something that I wanted to sell; but didn't know if people wanted to buy, they sound like ideal company...
13. Re: 80% of market in terms of what? by haruchai · 2014-03-25 00:23 · Score: 2
  
  I watched that recently and was astonished at their stranglehold on the market. Kudos to 60 Minutes for digging this up.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
14. Re:80% of market in terms of what? by CaptainLard · 2014-03-25 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  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.
15. Re:80% of market in terms of what? by BitZtream · 2014-03-25 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
16. Re:80% of market in terms of what? by BitZtream · 2014-03-25 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Oh boy! by Chas · 2014-03-24 22:24 · Score: 1

So we can pay even MORE to be glassholes?
Pass.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
1. Re:Oh boy! by Joce640k · 2014-03-24 22:38 · Score: 2
  
  ...and how does Google dumping money into something make it un-doomed? It can still fail just as badly as before.
  
  --
  No sig today...
2. Re:Oh boy! by BitZtream · 2014-03-25 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Luxotica by bl968 · 2014-03-24 23:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

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...

--
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
1. Re:Luxotica by CastrTroy · 2014-03-25 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
2. Re:Luxotica by lordofthechia · 2014-03-25 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  If you're looking for other online glasses providers (and want to avoid the Luxotica cartel) there's a few alternatives that I've seen come up on previous discussions:
  Zenni Optical
  glassesshop ?
  goggles4you
  cheapglassess123
  Warby Parker
  Classic Specs
  We bought 3 pairs from Zenni Optical for just at ~$100 ($110 I think?) and we've been *very* pleased. This after paying $250 - $300 per pair year after year at the local places. Seriously, the glasses online are so cheap it's worth it even just to have a throwaway (for going to the beach, theme parks, etc) or a backup pair.
  
  --
  Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
3. Re:Luxotica by JesseMcDonald · 2014-03-25 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  s/glasses/glucose meters/
  Oh wait...
  The same argument applies there. Insurance isn't for paying for things you know you need, it's for hedging your bets so that if something unexpected happens it doesn't render you destitute. You can't make the first kind of "insurance" work in a free society; people have to be forced to sign up, or the system goes bankrupt.
  The only real problem regarding "pre-existing conditions" is that under the current system you have to maintain your insurance continuously after being diagnosed in order to receive funding for your ongoing care, which naturally leaves people paranoid about being unemployed or unable to pay their insurance bill, even for a short time, and then not be accepted by any other insurer due to their known condition. The way it should work is that the current insurer is on the hook for the lifetime cost of care for whatever you were insured against at the time you were diagnosed, even if you later drop your insurance policy.
  
  --
  "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Who likes wearing glasses? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-24 23:27 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:Who likes wearing glasses? by MrMickS · 2014-03-24 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
2. Re:Who likes wearing glasses? by Sockatume · 2014-03-25 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
WTF? by CuteSteveJobs · 2014-03-24 23:30 · Score: 1

> 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.
1. Re:WTF? by Xest · 2014-03-24 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  It's just confirmation that Scoble is still an irrelevant douche.
  Slashdot needs this kind of reconfirmation every once in a while.
2. Re:WTF? by Lumpy · 2014-03-24 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  Scoble is irrelevant. he is as accurate as a random blogger.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
3. Re:WTF? by fermion · 2014-03-25 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
4. Re:WTF? by HornWumpus · 2014-03-25 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  The kind of chumps who like to pay more for sunglasses will eat it up.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
NSA Spy Droid by clarkw · 2014-03-24 23:48 · Score: 1

They want to deploy more spy droids. The spies can turn on your webcam now. I bet google glasses are tapped.
So by ThatsNotPudding · 2014-03-24 23:54 · Score: 1

Not just Glassholes, but stylish Glassholes.
Yay! by Maury+Markowitz · 2014-03-25 00:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?
1. Re:Yay! by tomthegeek · 2014-03-25 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  You can never have a monopoly on a web page, at least not without the ISPs help. If someone made a better search engine I would switch immediately. It's just very hard to do that. The only barriers to entry are talent and money.
2. Re:Yay! by Maury+Markowitz · 2014-03-25 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  > You can never have a monopoly on a web page
  Balogna. Google has content that they have captured both themselves and from other people that they use to feed their search results. Examples include AdWords, Books and YouTube. Since those two already exist, and block competitors from getting the data, you will find it very difficult to make a search engine that comes anywhere near as close to being as good. You'll have access to public works, but not the private ones that Google has swallowed.
3. Re:Yay! by tomthegeek · 2014-03-25 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  Not being easy doesn't make it a monopoly. You could start your own AdWords, Books and YouTube (but with blackjack and hookers) .
I might get one.... by mark-t · 2014-03-25 02:25 · Score: 1

.... 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.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Excel for the win by Dareth · 2014-03-25 02:26 · Score: 1

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.

--

I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
The Luxottica Group by Larry_Dillon · 2014-03-25 03:06 · Score: 2

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

--
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
Two monopolies by jtara · 2014-03-25 06:29 · Score: 1

I avoid Luxottica eyewear, because they have monopolized the industry and hurt small producers. They are on a constant buying binge to buy-up any producer that might gain some traction in showrooms, and make monopolistic demands on retailers.
They make (IMO) poor-quality eyewear at inflated prices. Most of the "designer" labels they make agreements with seem to be OK with this. BTW, you should be able to get any Luxottica products on line for at least half off of retail, because the prices are so inflated. You can get actual quality eyewear for the same price.
Retailers and professionals hate them, but have no choice.
Good one, Google. You really showed us how you do no evil.