Polarized Sun Glasses for $30

so fucking dumb.

people are obsessed with this stupid frame design, if you want to be a player in the sunglass market do something different.

look at oakley when it first came out, so many radical designs. the over the top, medusa, romeo.

that is what made them so famous. not copying the same style that every sunglass company makes.
 
Well that frame is recycled as fuck but I like the backstory, its always good to have history. Good luck to your friends.
 
Well that frame is recycled as fuck but I like the backstory, its always good to have history. Good luck to your friends.
 
so what its played as fuck a thousand kids are wearing frogskins and wayfarers (myself included) and 30 bucks for polarized versions is a fucking steal.

I think this is cool.
 
polarized =/= quality though. they are still cheap lenses just with a coating of polarization over them.

you can buy something similar at walmart.
 
I wish your friends the best of luck, but that design is nowhere near being innovative or original. Back when I thought Urban Outfitters was the shit, I picked up multiple pairs of pretty much the exact same sunglasses, all of which were polarized. Selling played shit is fine, but acting like it's an inventive product is not.
 
not every time, there are sunglasses that are just as good to or superior then oakley.

just not this shit.
 
I don't think that your friend needs too much money to spark this idea. He could sell the idea to some company for a couple grand and be happy with that. Just my $.02
 
Also, for me at least there's really no point in buying "good" (read: expensive) sunglasses because no matter how much they cost I'm just as likely to loose or break them. Maybe a little less likely to break them but not much.
 
They look pretty dope, I'd buy em if I didn't already have two pairs of Oakleys and a pair of EC ones
 
Its not inventive... Its breathing life into a brand that disappeared over 20 years ago. The point isn't that they are new. The point is that they are original
 
I used to think the same thing, but when the gascan first came out I wanted it so badly and just said F-it and put out like 105 at the time and babied those things. 6 years later they are still wearable albeit a little beat up now. now all of my oakleys I have are in perfect condition and I wear them on a regular basis. I take better care of them then I do my phone.

We all have things we like, for me I like to choke on oakleys dick a little bit. get over it.

but back to my origional point, companies get to be successful by being innovative. look at armada, and line. To of the first ski brands to be all freestyle. that is what made them successful.
 
is it practical to make cheap disposable skis? bad comparison. what might make these guys successful is price point.

have you seen how many kids wear the fake frogskins that are given away as promotional swag at parties and stuff? the sunglasses that literally cost a dollar probably? All that a couple of us are saying is this is a halfway decent business idea.
 
dude did you watch the video? every pair of sunglasses that you saw there were produced before you were born... I have worn them and i have worn oakleys... the extra 70 dollars you are spending isn't buying you a better quality pair of sunglasses, its just paying for all of Oakley's marketing costs.
 
You know when I was born? creepy.

that style is still the same as a frogskin, wayfarer, holbrook, jupiter. they can say it is some Australian design but what is different from the others I mentioned?

there are other glasses that fit that price point and look the same, ie. knockarounds.

you can tell the difference in quality of lens from companies like oakley, ray ban, arnette, revo, really any luxotica company compared to a knockaround or similar like this.

You have to do something innovative if you want to stand out, and that design is not innovative.
 
i need new sunglasses because i just lost my knockarounds, and i was thinking i would get something different from the wayfarer style ive worn for my last several pair. now ive realized that i dont really like most other glasses designs. it seems like your only options are wayfarers, aviators, "sport" frames, or european gigantic asshole glasses. i dont know what it is that i want, but clearly no one is making it.
 
I just boight the black polarized ones like a week ago and so far im enjoying them a lot. I would def reccommend picking up a pair. Stun really needs to add more to their polarized stock though and cut the shit with their fruity little "I'm a flamingo" designs.
 
one of the guys who started the kickstarter campaign here. found this thread through the backlinks of people who were buying (thank you!). I registered because I thought I could add some heat to the debates about oakley, rayban, etc:

the reason why you are paying so much for sunglasses is because there is one italian company, Luxottica, which makes and owns 80% of the sunglasses people wear. They have a monopoly on the designer sunglasses market and make a shitton of money marking up 3,700% sunglasses that cost $4 to make (and sell for $150)

according to wikipedia, they own the sunglasses brands of:

-oakley

-rayban

-persol

-tory burch

-prada

-d&g

-versace

-polo

-dkny

-burberry

-chanel

-coach

-bulgari

and a ton of other brands I haven't heard of. They also own lenscrafters, pearl vision, sunglasses hut, and a bunch of vision care organizations run in the US.

basically it's a big fucking scam because they own the medical organizations that say you need glasses, own the vision clinics that determine your prescription, own the glasses shops that sell you the sunglasses, and own the brands that manufacture the sunglasses you are told to buy.

no wonder they keep a low profile, they're so slimy. we're legit worried about italian mobsters or something coming and breaking our legs for bringing back the sunglasses style that ray ban ripped off.
 
I laughed so incredibly hard at this. Do you have any idea how many brands that are using that style, that are exactly like your brand?
 
the wayfarer style has been around since the late 1950s, but they went into a total slump in the 70s and 80s. AFAIK the original sunski wayfarer style was introduced in the mid 80s, and the 1990s wayfarer redesign done by ray ban changed the style from the pointed "wings" (see tom cruise in risky business) to the rounded style that the sunskis had.
 
Those look sweet, I would pick some up if I didn't just get Knockarounds. I really hope that goes through, because my Knocks will probably be trashed by the end of the summer, and I will definitely pick up some SunSkis if this goes through.
 
Now you just sound uneducated. Luxottica by no means keeps a low profile, and there is no way that they have a monopoly on eyewear. There are plenty of companies that do not associate with Luxottica and make quality products (ex. Shwood). It's a standard business practice to mark up prices in an attempt to increase profit margins, almost every major corporation does it (ex. Apple).

Also, a lot of companies have used that same wayfarer design for years and years. Even if Ray Ban did take the idea to put rounded corners on their original design, so what? They literally rounded the corners on their sunglasses. Sunskis went out of business because there was no demand, and now you are taking their company name and product and selling them as your own.
 
I bought three pairs of sunglasses for $40 from Eastern Collective. Halfway decent and 20 bucks each.
 
Fuck yeah Newschoolers. The project has raised 44% of its goal in less than 36 hours... Keep it coming guys. If you want to see these things get made then make a pledge...

+ Karma to anyone who makes a commitment.

 
Luxottica has definitely kept a low profile for a company it's size. How many people know that Oakley and Ray Ban are made by the same company? I bet a show of hands would say not that many.

And they are absolutely a monopoly on designer sunglasses. One of the definitions of a monopoly is the ability to effectively set price levels, and by the fact that they own almost every major designer brand, as well as vertically integrated through the sales channel, means that they can control the message and price in the designer sunglasses market and get away with selling for $150 glasses that cost $3.98 to make.

Apple's markups, while still higher than other brands, is on a completely lower order of magnitude than Luxottica. Whereas Dell or HP may only make a ~30% margin on their computers (build for $400, sell for $500), Apple can pull off closer to 50% (intel Imac costs $900 to manufacture, retails for ~$2000) Apple's ability to eek out higher margins is both a factor of the brand equity it has, as well as the fact that it controls the distribution channel by fulfilling directly. (like dell, but unlike HP).

If Apple were to have the same margins as Luxottica (~37x cost of manufacture), you'd be buying an iMac for $33,300.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top