- Joined
- Jan 23, 2010
- Messages
- 458
- Reaction score
- 80
keywords: free, John Stossel, Steven Lee, Dan Bodde, Ayo Jimoh, Jana Schuster, Bruce Goldstick, Geoffrey Tabin, Ralph Lanciano
I posted these thoughts to the other thread but it deserves its own thread for search engine optimization (SEO) purposes.
Opternative Will Fail
Refraction is at the mercy of technology eventually, but Opternative isn't the gamechanger. Why? The cost. At $50, this DIY internet thing seems like an even worse value than a (say) $95 eye exam from an optometrist. Maybe I'm totally wrong on this but let me explain why and how I'd do things if I was this company.
Clearly Contacts got into the market because successfully because they knew they had a viable product/service that would eventually succeed, but they probably also realized that people had some reservations about getting glasses online. So the first year they were in the business, they gave away free glasses. All you had to do was pay shipping. At least that's how it was in Canada. What they realized they needed, was a large enough base of "pilot" individuals to try out their product, and be able to tell others that it works just as they expected it to. The way they got people to use their service was by providing it for free. Free sells. And the rest was history.
At $50, people using Opternative are simply using an app. Doesn't that seem like a rip off to you? Like - apps are "free", so it seems the people running Opternative are getting an even bigger "mark up" than optometrists at the store that charge $20 more. If the whole idea about an alternative is to cut out the big mark-up big made by unscrupulous "middle-men" (people in the middle of your money and your RX for glasses), then it seems Opternative is lining the pockets of the owners at an even greater percentage than the optometrist that is allegedly ripping you off.
Opternative should basically roll out their service "for free" in the initial stages so that a meaningful number of people get familiar and comfortable using their service, so they can start telling others to use it. Later, their fee should run like $10 - $15, and that's it. At $50, I can't see anyone thinking they are getting a "good" deal, if for $65, they can get the friendly optometrist they've been seeing since they were 5, to do their eye exam and eye health check etc. The price simply isn't competitive enough for people to try an "experimental" DIY cheapie iPhone app. It has to basically be free.
If anyone says, "Hey but people will pay $50 for a pair of online glasses instead of $95". But that's different. In both cases you are getting glasses. You may perceive the product to be essentially the same. But in this case, I don't see how people think using an expensive app (who pays to use apps??) is the same as seeing an eye doctor. As well, they all know friends who got glasses online, during the free period, and it seemed to work out for them.
So basically, Opternative isn't the alternative. They are too greedy and no, their $50 eye exam isn't cheap. As a user, I'd probably wonder why it cost $50. Where did that money go? I provided the internet connection, the iPhone. So I don't see anything but a big mark-up. So I wouldn't necessarily feel I was doing anything but lining their pockets by using this service.
I posted these thoughts to the other thread but it deserves its own thread for search engine optimization (SEO) purposes.
Opternative Will Fail
Refraction is at the mercy of technology eventually, but Opternative isn't the gamechanger. Why? The cost. At $50, this DIY internet thing seems like an even worse value than a (say) $95 eye exam from an optometrist. Maybe I'm totally wrong on this but let me explain why and how I'd do things if I was this company.
Clearly Contacts got into the market because successfully because they knew they had a viable product/service that would eventually succeed, but they probably also realized that people had some reservations about getting glasses online. So the first year they were in the business, they gave away free glasses. All you had to do was pay shipping. At least that's how it was in Canada. What they realized they needed, was a large enough base of "pilot" individuals to try out their product, and be able to tell others that it works just as they expected it to. The way they got people to use their service was by providing it for free. Free sells. And the rest was history.
At $50, people using Opternative are simply using an app. Doesn't that seem like a rip off to you? Like - apps are "free", so it seems the people running Opternative are getting an even bigger "mark up" than optometrists at the store that charge $20 more. If the whole idea about an alternative is to cut out the big mark-up big made by unscrupulous "middle-men" (people in the middle of your money and your RX for glasses), then it seems Opternative is lining the pockets of the owners at an even greater percentage than the optometrist that is allegedly ripping you off.
Opternative should basically roll out their service "for free" in the initial stages so that a meaningful number of people get familiar and comfortable using their service, so they can start telling others to use it. Later, their fee should run like $10 - $15, and that's it. At $50, I can't see anyone thinking they are getting a "good" deal, if for $65, they can get the friendly optometrist they've been seeing since they were 5, to do their eye exam and eye health check etc. The price simply isn't competitive enough for people to try an "experimental" DIY cheapie iPhone app. It has to basically be free.
If anyone says, "Hey but people will pay $50 for a pair of online glasses instead of $95". But that's different. In both cases you are getting glasses. You may perceive the product to be essentially the same. But in this case, I don't see how people think using an expensive app (who pays to use apps??) is the same as seeing an eye doctor. As well, they all know friends who got glasses online, during the free period, and it seemed to work out for them.
So basically, Opternative isn't the alternative. They are too greedy and no, their $50 eye exam isn't cheap. As a user, I'd probably wonder why it cost $50. Where did that money go? I provided the internet connection, the iPhone. So I don't see anything but a big mark-up. So I wouldn't necessarily feel I was doing anything but lining their pockets by using this service.
