alt Hacker NewsCurrently there's a massive, and understandable, backlash against the Meta/Ray-Ban glasses, but I can't understand how it's not absolutely destroying the Ray-Ban brand?
Influencers and stores are damaging their brands by selling or advertising the glasses, but Ray-Ban seems to go completely free.
I do wonder if we're just moving to shun people wearing glasses with heavy frames in the near future. The glass only seems to appeal to a certain type of people anyway.
Replies
It's especially frustrating because the Ray-Ban logo no longer indicates quality or exclusivity: They were acquired by Luxottica Group in 1999.
Well, RayBan was junk brand in 90s, if it becomes junk it would be just fine.
> but I can't understand how it's not absolutely destroying the Ray-Ban brand?
> Ray-Ban seems to go completely free.
because reasonable adults can distinguish between Meta and Ray-Ban.
Penalty because it’s based on what people think when they see them. They don’t say Meta Raybands but just Meta glasses. If influential people were to start saying the former enough that it becomes then martins. Also is the question of do other Rayband glasses look like it. If this line is distinct enough than it won’t harm other lines since the visual association isn’t made.
It might be destroying the brand, but does anyone care?
Anecdotal but I hear quite a few people talk negative about Ray-Ban related to the backlash. They are the "pervert glasses" brand now. I think there definitely is reputation damage. Also the "banray" [0] campaign for my country is doing well I think (I regularly see their stickers), and this name reversal may also harm the brand if it sticks.
People still keep using Instagram and X and until that changes there is no backlash. Customers and users have signaled over and over there is nothing that can be done to make them leave, so Mark and Elon get to do whatever they want.
>> "The glass only seems to appeal to a certain type of people anyway."
What type of people is that? I am just a dad who has them and films his kids doing cute things without making the phone camera an ever present intrusion while outdoors.
It's fine, it's Meta, suspicion is warranted, but I'm hoping it can be moderated and directed. People like me are kind of left out right now in what seems to be a runaway narrative.
P.S: Would love a suggestion that doesn't involve angrily telling parents to not take pictures of their kids as an alternative. It sucks that I have to explain that this will be happening anyway.
I had my ray-ban sunglasses stolen this summer.
I replaced them with a brand I was able to confirm was a) Not Ray Ban b) Not a Luxotica brand. c) Owned and operated in America (note, that doesn't mean the glasses were made in USA). d) Cost less than 1/4 of previous ray-bans.
Luxottica, the owners of Ray-Ban since 1999, realized after they survived the expose on their blatant monopolistic price gouging that none of this sticks. People just see something they recognize and go with it.
Currently there's a massive, and understandable, backlash against the Meta/Ray-Ban glasses
Is there? "Massive?"
Outside of HN and a few tech pubs read by a statistically insignificant number of people, 99.9995% of people don't even know these exist.
> I do wonder if we're just moving to shun people wearing glasses with heavy frames in the near future. The glass only seems to appeal to a certain type of people anyway.
That's ridiculous.
Don't forget, Facebook (Meta) owns 3% of Ray-Ban's parent Luxottica group [1]. They clearly are exerting control over the future direction.
Regardless of what THEY do, what WE as consumers can do is to permanently brand these awful glasses as "pervert glasses" [2] and publicly shame them. I'm here for it.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/meta-takes-around-3-sta...
[2] https://futurism.com/future-society/meta-ray-ban-smart-perve...