There's no monopoly. You can buy identical glasses on the side of the street for $10. Except you aren't going to get the RayBan logo, and that's what people are paying for.

▲

gretch 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> You can buy identical glasses on the side of the street for $10. Except you aren't going to get the RayBan logo

That's funny because the ones sold on my street are $10 and they definitely have the rayban logo

▲

dmix 5 days ago | parent [-]

It’s usually the build quality which is usually noticeable by other people looking at it and how they’ll break in a week from light wear

▲

efskap 5 days ago | parent [-]

The main reason I avoid cheap sunglasses is that if they only dim in the visible spectrum, your pupil dilates and lets in more UV light than it would have otherwise, damaging the retina. Not that the full spectrum protection explains away the entire premium, but it is a reason not to go for bottom of the barrel ones sold on street corners.

▲

tsimionescu 5 days ago | parent [-]

Common glass absorbs most of the UV light, and your lens and cornea absorb the rest. If UV light did hit your retina, you'd actually notice it - people who lack a cornea and/or lens can actually notice UV light, which is why artificial lenses like you'd get after in cataract surgery are now made of UV-absorbant materials.

So unless you have a rare medical condition AND you're buying plastic lens glasses, I think you're worrying for nothing.

	▲	igorstellar 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		All that is true except almost no sunglasses made with the glass lenses. It’s almost all plastic with UV shielding layer.

▲

bix6 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Technically not a monopoly but colloquially I disagree.

They account for 30% of the global market. They own key brands, license key premium names, and control key distributors like sunglass hut and LensCrafters.

Their cost to manufacture vs sale price shows a clear ability to price like a monopoly. As does their ability to box out competitors.

The $10 look alikes are not identical. They generally are cheaper materials, not polarized or coated, etc.

▲

SoftTalker 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

True for the $10 ones. But you can get very nice sunglasses with coating and polarizing lenses for way less than RayBan. RayBans are nice glasses too but you are mostly paying for the name.

▲

lotsofpulp 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Their cost to manufacture vs sale price shows a clear ability to price like a monopoly.

No, it doesn't. It shows there exists demand for their products at that price point.

>As does their ability to box out competitors.

They have none. Anyone can go to various websites and order cheaper sunglasses that work just as well, or go to Costco and buy them for $25.

▲

paxys 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Their cost to manufacture vs sale price shows a clear ability to price like a monopoly

Again, you are getting confused by branding vs monopoly. They sell luxury goods and can mark them at wild premiums, same as Hermès and Ferrari. None of them are monopolies. Very far from it.

	▲	bix6 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		No I’m not. Hermes and Ferrari are one off brands not massive conglomerations of multiple brands. LVMH is also monopoly-like. Ferrari is not even close to 1% of global auto sales, they aren’t moving the market the way Luxottica can. Sure Ferrari has luxury pricing but it’s not boxing you out at Sephora.