Rendered at 22:24:04 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
xp84 7 hours ago [-]
Looks super cool!
> It still needs to obtain the necessary medical certifications in order to sell its glasses and get all the production pieces in place
Oh, ok. I hope they have enough funding to last till the FDA clears them, in 2030 :/
The same organization which allows any snake oil to be marketed as long as they say it’s a “supplement” will hold a pair of glasses up for years, as though there could be a hidden danger to a lens that can change to a second prescription.
snackbroken 6 hours ago [-]
There is potential danger with a lens that can suddenly change to a second prescription. For example: imagine you're driving and your whole field of vision suddenly starts flickering in and out of focus. That would be incredibly distracting and pretty dangerous. Even if they just started focusing on 1 foot away it'd be quite bad.
Nifty3929 6 hours ago [-]
These glasses address farsightedness, which doesn't apply while driving. Worst case you just take them off.
cperciva 6 hours ago [-]
Plenty of us are simultaneously far and near sighted. I can't drive without glasses, but until I got progressive lenses I couldn't use my phone with my glasses on.
WalterBright 2 hours ago [-]
If you cannot drive without glasses, the sensible thing is to keep a backup pair in the car. After all, glasses can fall off and get lost under the seat, get stepped on, etc.
Noumenon72 2 hours ago [-]
That's a smart idea, similar to how I keep a little cash in the car just in case. For example, I could get something in my eyes and have to remove my contacts, and an old pair of glasses would let me get home.
1123581321 5 hours ago [-]
If they are replacing bifocals, the wearer needs both a near- and far-sighted prescription. Far-sighted only would never need these.
Either failure mode would be dangerous while driving because you need to be able to read your dash.
WalterBright 2 hours ago [-]
It's not a crisis if you cannot read your dash. How often do you look at the oil pressure gauge, for example? As for speed, just move with the traffic.
onemoresoop 5 hours ago [-]
Add warning not to drive with them. Problem solved.
DoctorOetker 55 minutes ago [-]
If it worked 99% of the time, compliance would be nil, but you don't want these drivers to be affected 1% of their commute
Even if a person would be compliant, if they wore this most of the time, they wouldn't be accustomed to the varifocal lenses while driving, guaranteeing that whatever other solution than these autofocusing lenses they select for driving, they won't be adapted to them whenever they drive.
4 hours ago [-]
WalterBright 2 hours ago [-]
The FDA needs to make the glasses as expensive as possible.
NDlurker 6 hours ago [-]
You should look into dietary supplement regulations, specifically about label claims and advertising.
xp84 5 hours ago [-]
You mean the rule that’s basically “Anything goes” as long as you reproduce the magic incantation in tiny print at the end:
“This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.”
NDlurker 5 hours ago [-]
That's not how it works.
dcrazy 7 hours ago [-]
The FDA doesn’t “allow” snake-oil supplements. They have no authority over supplements.
SoftTalker 6 hours ago [-]
They in fact do have a lot of requirements for supplements and their labeling, but do not require (in fact forbid) any claims that the supplements should be used to treat or cure any disease.
"Cameraless eye tracking" is understating the key insight here. They don't even need to track which direction you're looking! The only thing they need to measure is the difference between the two directions, and parallax tells them how to focus.
Important to note, of course, that this only works for people with normal binocular vision -- but that's the majority of customers.
heikkilevanto 8 hours ago [-]
I am not so sure about the eye tracking and autofocus stuff, but would love a simple focus knob on the frames to adjust instead of changing to a different pair of glasses. I suspect the tracking and focusing electronics must be somewhat clumsy and a battery life of a single day sounds suboptimal for me.
SomeHacker44 6 hours ago [-]
This exists. There was a frame with a slider on the nose bridge which refocuses circular lenses. I read about it a long (decade+?) time ago.
heikkilevanto 2 hours ago [-]
Sounds interesting. But I suspect my astigmatism would kind of exclude just turning the lenses around
RickJWagner 8 hours ago [-]
Add to that the blinking LEDs that track eye movements. No thanks.
sva_ 7 hours ago [-]
Are you one of the few people who are able to perceive infrared light?
RickJWagner 7 hours ago [-]
No. My wife has migraines, though, triggered by flashing lights. I’d have to wonder about the long term affects from the glasses.
isityettime 8 hours ago [-]
I'm under 40, recently had cataract surgery to address mild cararacts, and deeply regret that choice. I strongly feel I lost more than I gained, and now need to carry multiple pairs of glasses every time I go out to engage many common activities.
Unfortunately I don't have presbyopia at all (my surgery still left me myopic) and my inability to change focus distance is drastically more severe than what happens naturally with aging. This first generation of IXI glasses won't be useful to me.
But I really, really want something like it.
dmayle 8 hours ago [-]
You can swap out your default lenses with multifocal lenses... I use multifocal contact lenses, and my wife and my mother both had the surgery. My wife got the panoptix (no need for glasses at all) and my mother got vivity (just need reading glasses). At night, there are halos with the panoptix lenses (same with the multifocal contact lenses), the severity is not always the same per-person, and it bothers some people more than others (interferes with night driving), but it's an option. Yes, it's another surgery, but depending on your ability to afford it, and the amount it bothers you, it is still an option. From my point of view (admittedly, with contact lenses), going from three different pairs of glasses (vision, vision+reading, plain contact lenses+reading) to contact lenses with no glasses at all was just unquestionably worth it.
isityettime 8 hours ago [-]
I'm unfortunately not a candidate for multifocal intraocular lenses due to other problems with my eyes, otherwise I would have gone with them for the first surgery.
Multifocal contacts are probably not a good long-term fit for those same reasons, and there's the same problem with progressive lenses in glasses. Old-school bifocals are okay, but limited in the usual way.
NetMageSCW 3 hours ago [-]
Perhaps you could try monovision in glasses instead of multifocal?
I have monovision contacts and they work pretty well for me, though mid-tier (e.g. desk computer) work requires special glasses.
WalterBright 2 hours ago [-]
The local drug store went bust recently. They had a clearance sale, and I bought a collection of reading glasses of different strengths for a few dollars each.
I find them very handy, as my progressive lenses are rather limited for closeup work.
jaggederest 6 hours ago [-]
Have you tried using contact lenses to make one eye long focus and one eye short focus ("monovision" in intraopticlens terms)? Then you'd only need at most one middle-distance pair of glasses on hand.
NetMageSCW 3 hours ago [-]
Exactly what I do, and even though my short focus is set extra short, I only need the middle distance glasses for desk computer work.
spatley 6 hours ago [-]
Do you mind telling what procedure you got? I know multiple people that had lens replacement surgery for cataracts and are very happy with their vision. But that is just a couple of stories.
isityettime 4 hours ago [-]
Just had my natural lenses removed and a standard monofocal lens put in in each eye. But I've had only a marginal improvement in visual acuity and none in color vision. Before my surgery my cataracts weren't even detectable in my normal field of view; they were tiny and my brain just patched around them. But my overall acuity was low enough that I met the insurance criteria and I went for it thinking it would be similar to the experiences of others in my life who had received intraocular lenses. But those people were all older or had ICLs or experienced more impairment from their cataracts than I had. I made the wrong call getting the surgery. :(
Mezzie 7 hours ago [-]
I don't have cataracts, but my prescription is so severe and I'm getting to an age where there's an RX difference between near, medium, and far sight, and I just wanted to commiserate. It is annoying to have to have multiple pairs of glasses, and remember where you put them, and do you have the right ones for this, etc.
RHSeeger 4 hours ago [-]
I keep my new computer glasses at the computer, and the old ones downstairs for "other" uses. Then I keep my new driving glasses in the car, and the old ones downstairs for "other" uses (tv, etc). Basically, I keep the new ones where it matters and accept that my vision will be mediocre in other cases. And also, I'll see 2 of everything because I have double-vision (corrected with the glasses - but "older" ones don't work very well for it).
Mezzie 3 hours ago [-]
I have to choose each year between paying for (main) glasses or contacts, so I usually opt for contacts and that means my glasses are a few years old. When I wear them at night, I definitely see double. Hate it.
I'm a -20, so small differences really magnify.
jaggederest 2 hours ago [-]
Wow, that's a wild prescription, presumably ICL would be a huge quality of life difference for you! You could get within a diopter or two. I've been contemplating it at only -6, my commiseration on the multiple focal lengths.
Mezzie 8 minutes ago [-]
Yeah, I've wanted ICL for years, but I could never afford it out of pocket, and all insurance considers vision correction aesthetic. Which is freaking stupid: There's a huge difference between me and someone who's a -2.
I might be able to stretch it now, but I'm coming up on my presbyopia years, so I'm not sure it's worth the money if I'm only going to get a few years of stability.
At this point, I'm hoping I take after my mother and get some really early cataracts because then I can just pay for the lens and the insertion/replacement will be covered.
If you can afford it, I would go for it, though. Personally, even for people who are candidates for PRK, LASIK, etc. I think ICL is still worth considering because it has some benefits. Less risk of dry eye and the ability to change the lens if your prescription changes. Longer recovery period, though.
jaggederest 1 minutes ago [-]
I know I'm not a candidate for PRK/LASIK/LASEK due to dry eye (curse you programming!), so ICL was always my fallback, but like you I'm approaching the point where presbyopia is going to be a concern.
devilbunny 2 hours ago [-]
Holy fucking shit. I am -11 contacts, -13 glasses, and you are the first person I have ever heard of that is more than one diopter stronger than me.
Ophthalmologists will bring their newer assistants in to look at my eyes to see what a severe myope looks like. I got contacts at age eight, so they also use me to show off what a scrupulous contact user’s eyes look like after >40 years. I’m a physician myself, so I’m happy to oblige - some things you can’t understand until you see them.
Mezzie 11 minutes ago [-]
Yeah, the only people I've heard of with worse vision than me are those with some sort of associated eye condition (e.g. kerataconus).
For the most part, it's...fine. Insurance has no idea what to do with me and that's frustrating, though. Somehow, I have eyes this bad without any associated pathology, and companies don't understand that the needs that such severe myopia presents on its own. I wear custom made RGPs; they can custom make softs but they're horrific (or at least they were 13 years ago when I gave up on them).
Isn't it hilarious every time you go to a new eye doctor? It's actually really cute: I like watching them get all giddy. They get so excited when they can't use the machines (a lot of them will only go up to a -15) and have to measure my RX manually. You can just see how they're like 'oh my God, I learned about this in school!'
isityettime 6 hours ago [-]
I appreciate your commiseration! Thanks for dropping by to share :)
pmontra 5 hours ago [-]
It's only me or it does not explain how it works?
> the technology [...] can be separated into two parts. First [...]
is the part that tracks eye movements and what they are focusing on.
The second part is never written. There is a hint later on:
> [the] prototype lenses, made up of layers of liquid crystal and a transparent ITO (indium tin oxide) conductive layer. This combination is still incredibly thin, and it was amazing to watch the layers switch almost instantly into a prescription lens
FatalLogic 51 minutes ago [-]
>It's only me or it does not explain how it works?
I'll try my best to explain, according to what I understand:
An electric field can re-orientate the liquid crystal molecules, which changes the speed of light within the liquid crystal, and thereby changes the liquid crystal's refractive index.
This changes the angle of light as it passes from other material (such as air or plastic or glass) into the liquid crystal, and that change of angle changes the focal point of the light ray.
That effect provides the ability to focus incoming light, controlled by electricity.
That's probably not exactly right, but it's better than the explanation in the original story, which is non-existent and also has a very confused reference to ITO (indium tin oxide), like you've noticed.
iandanforth 9 hours ago [-]
Putting two adaptive dynamic systems next to each other is tricky. Your eyes and these glasses could easily create a positive or negative feedback loop or begin oscillating. So while cool I hope they have some experienced controls people on staff to detect and prevent such things.
russdill 7 hours ago [-]
That's the beauty of eye tracking. The two adjustments are orthogonal. You don't cross and uncross your eyes to adjust focus.
kennyadam 9 hours ago [-]
If only they’d had a frontend web dev on the team!
perching_aix 5 hours ago [-]
Maybe they really should. That way, instead of having a run of the mill unusable parallax scrolling landing page, they could have a page with a controllable animation that visually explains the mechanism of action behind these glasses. Would be a hell of a lot more interesting than vague or otherwise inscrutable prose about liquid crystals / their products / their company being cool.
doublerabbit 7 hours ago [-]
Don't say that, I don't want lenses running on Vue/React.
Make it love2d where humans and building are replaced by pixel art.
julianlam 5 hours ago [-]
Does this mean a single pair can be adjusted over time to adapt to a changing prescription?
Buying lenses is often the most expensive part, especially for those with astigmatism, second only to the frames themselves, which is another racket altogether.
alsetmusic 8 hours ago [-]
In the last two to three years, I've hit a point where I need to take off my glasses (near-sighted, can't see things far away) to read my phone. I can still make out the text with them on, but it's physically uncomfortable and holding it at a distance helps.
I've been thinking about the existence of bifocals and how they aren't ideal as I come to terms with the inconvenience of removing my glasses and putting them back on repeatedly as I task switch. This sounds pretty great and I hope it's not smoke and mirrors (given enough time, science fiction tends to become reality, so I'm hopeful).
nottorp 5 hours ago [-]
I was reluctant to try progressive lenses at first as well. Ended up loving them. Look ahead to see far, look down to see the car dashboard or your phone.
Of course, being a programmer I have another pair of glasses just for monitors. If your work doesn't involve reading a lot maybe you can get away with just progressives, but this is HN so not likely.
linsomniac 7 hours ago [-]
I'm at the same point you are, and a couple years ago I ended up getting bifocals, and let me tell you it's absolutely worth it! I ended up getting "multi-tasking bifocals" (what my glasses place called them), which are basically normal glasses with the lower area a second prescription for reading the phone. There are others that have 3 areas (reading at the bottom, distance a small spot in the middle, and then a middle ground elsewhere).
I didn't really want to get bifocals because it's what old people wear ;-). But it's so much better with them.
The glasses place (CostCo Optical) guy was kind of a jerk about it, all but saying "you're going to wreck your car if you use these for anything but at your desk", but I just "yeah, yeah"ed him, I like my prescription dialed back a bit from max power for day-to-day use.
If you can afford it, maybe give them a try? Zenni and other onlines might make them affordable enough to just try?
sandworm101 5 hours ago [-]
>> The team has also refined the nose pieces and glasses arms to accommodate different face shapes. Apparently, when testing expanded from Finland to the UK, British faces were "...different." A little harsh when talking to me, a Brit.
So the finish company's eyeglasses didn't fit a "British" face?
Fun story about this problem. When I was a kid I was a nationally-ranked swimmer. Almost everyone who could wore "Swedish" racing goggles aka swedes. These are very simple and tiny goggles, just a plastic cup that fits on, almost within, your eye socket. Your eyebrow normally sits over the top of the goggle, holding it onto your face. (I could swim slowly without the strap.) They are amazing, by far the best racing goggles out there. No foam to peal. Small enough not to fall off during a dive. And held together with string so you can adjust them perfectly to your face. They were also dirt cheap. But without any soft parts they are unforgiving to the point of racism. If your skull is even a slightly different shape than the Nordic/Viking/Swedish ideal, the goggles will not sit on your eye socket properly. On Asian people they tend to leak unless you tighten them painfully. On many black people they tend to rotate and climb into the eye socket. To nobody's surprise, they have kept the "Swedish" name because, in this case, any racial connotation is very appropriate.
(If you buy these, ditch the stock straps. Nobody uses them because they rot/age very quickly. Use silicon string.)
pavel_lishin 9 hours ago [-]
Honestly, even if they could shift focus via some sort of "command" - a muscle tick or something - that would be a game changer as it is. Every time I play D&D, I have to keep taking off and putting on my glasses so I can read my notes, and see my players' faces clearly.
(I'm aware of the multifocal glasses mentioned in the article; they didn't work well for me.)
snackbroken 6 hours ago [-]
An alternative to multifocals is glasses with one lens for near and the other for far or to use a contact lens in only one eye in addition to your normal glasses. This also obviously comes with downsides that take some getting used to but some people prefer it.
russdill 7 hours ago [-]
They do! The command is, cross your eyes a little bit
gedy 8 hours ago [-]
I'm in a similar situation but found that getting "computer glasses" made which use the near prescription (and are not for long distance) work well for this. (I run D&D as well lol) I could not handle multifocal at all, was disorienting for me.
homeonthemtn 9 hours ago [-]
As a glasses wearer I'm looking forward to this tech. I like the idea of natural, seamless auto focusing, and as a future fantasy, a simple, toggleable overlay of info would be nifty.
Going out foraging and being able to identify plants and fungi by simply resting my vision on something for a pause is the sci Fi tech I actually want
dnnddidiej 9 hours ago [-]
How does it compare to multifocal contact lenses?
pavel_lishin 9 hours ago [-]
My understanding of those is that contact lenses work the same way that multifocal glasses work, with the added disadvantage that every time you blink, it takes them a second to re-align correctly. So this should be completely different, if it works.
SoftTalker 6 hours ago [-]
I tried them and could not get used to them. I went back to using single focus lenses and using mild readers (1.00 or 1.25 for desktop screen work at arm's length, and slightly stronger readers (2.00 or maybe 2.50) for very close work.
I typically have a pair of mild readers that I leave on the desk and carry a pair of the stronger ones around for reading my phone, restaurant menus, etc.
Note if you wear glasses you can "focus" them to some extent by sliding them up and down your nose.
8 hours ago [-]
ece 9 hours ago [-]
I wonder how long the wait will be for AR glasses to have this option too.
> It still needs to obtain the necessary medical certifications in order to sell its glasses and get all the production pieces in place
Oh, ok. I hope they have enough funding to last till the FDA clears them, in 2030 :/
The same organization which allows any snake oil to be marketed as long as they say it’s a “supplement” will hold a pair of glasses up for years, as though there could be a hidden danger to a lens that can change to a second prescription.
Either failure mode would be dangerous while driving because you need to be able to read your dash.
Even if a person would be compliant, if they wore this most of the time, they wouldn't be accustomed to the varifocal lenses while driving, guaranteeing that whatever other solution than these autofocusing lenses they select for driving, they won't be adapted to them whenever they drive.
“This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.”
https://www.fda.gov/food/dietary-supplements-guidance-docume...
Important to note, of course, that this only works for people with normal binocular vision -- but that's the majority of customers.
Unfortunately I don't have presbyopia at all (my surgery still left me myopic) and my inability to change focus distance is drastically more severe than what happens naturally with aging. This first generation of IXI glasses won't be useful to me.
But I really, really want something like it.
Multifocal contacts are probably not a good long-term fit for those same reasons, and there's the same problem with progressive lenses in glasses. Old-school bifocals are okay, but limited in the usual way.
I have monovision contacts and they work pretty well for me, though mid-tier (e.g. desk computer) work requires special glasses.
I find them very handy, as my progressive lenses are rather limited for closeup work.
I'm a -20, so small differences really magnify.
I might be able to stretch it now, but I'm coming up on my presbyopia years, so I'm not sure it's worth the money if I'm only going to get a few years of stability.
At this point, I'm hoping I take after my mother and get some really early cataracts because then I can just pay for the lens and the insertion/replacement will be covered.
If you can afford it, I would go for it, though. Personally, even for people who are candidates for PRK, LASIK, etc. I think ICL is still worth considering because it has some benefits. Less risk of dry eye and the ability to change the lens if your prescription changes. Longer recovery period, though.
Ophthalmologists will bring their newer assistants in to look at my eyes to see what a severe myope looks like. I got contacts at age eight, so they also use me to show off what a scrupulous contact user’s eyes look like after >40 years. I’m a physician myself, so I’m happy to oblige - some things you can’t understand until you see them.
For the most part, it's...fine. Insurance has no idea what to do with me and that's frustrating, though. Somehow, I have eyes this bad without any associated pathology, and companies don't understand that the needs that such severe myopia presents on its own. I wear custom made RGPs; they can custom make softs but they're horrific (or at least they were 13 years ago when I gave up on them).
Isn't it hilarious every time you go to a new eye doctor? It's actually really cute: I like watching them get all giddy. They get so excited when they can't use the machines (a lot of them will only go up to a -15) and have to measure my RX manually. You can just see how they're like 'oh my God, I learned about this in school!'
> the technology [...] can be separated into two parts. First [...]
is the part that tracks eye movements and what they are focusing on.
The second part is never written. There is a hint later on:
> [the] prototype lenses, made up of layers of liquid crystal and a transparent ITO (indium tin oxide) conductive layer. This combination is still incredibly thin, and it was amazing to watch the layers switch almost instantly into a prescription lens
I'll try my best to explain, according to what I understand:
An electric field can re-orientate the liquid crystal molecules, which changes the speed of light within the liquid crystal, and thereby changes the liquid crystal's refractive index.
This changes the angle of light as it passes from other material (such as air or plastic or glass) into the liquid crystal, and that change of angle changes the focal point of the light ray.
That effect provides the ability to focus incoming light, controlled by electricity.
That's probably not exactly right, but it's better than the explanation in the original story, which is non-existent and also has a very confused reference to ITO (indium tin oxide), like you've noticed.
Make it love2d where humans and building are replaced by pixel art.
Buying lenses is often the most expensive part, especially for those with astigmatism, second only to the frames themselves, which is another racket altogether.
I've been thinking about the existence of bifocals and how they aren't ideal as I come to terms with the inconvenience of removing my glasses and putting them back on repeatedly as I task switch. This sounds pretty great and I hope it's not smoke and mirrors (given enough time, science fiction tends to become reality, so I'm hopeful).
Of course, being a programmer I have another pair of glasses just for monitors. If your work doesn't involve reading a lot maybe you can get away with just progressives, but this is HN so not likely.
I didn't really want to get bifocals because it's what old people wear ;-). But it's so much better with them.
The glasses place (CostCo Optical) guy was kind of a jerk about it, all but saying "you're going to wreck your car if you use these for anything but at your desk", but I just "yeah, yeah"ed him, I like my prescription dialed back a bit from max power for day-to-day use.
If you can afford it, maybe give them a try? Zenni and other onlines might make them affordable enough to just try?
So the finish company's eyeglasses didn't fit a "British" face?
Fun story about this problem. When I was a kid I was a nationally-ranked swimmer. Almost everyone who could wore "Swedish" racing goggles aka swedes. These are very simple and tiny goggles, just a plastic cup that fits on, almost within, your eye socket. Your eyebrow normally sits over the top of the goggle, holding it onto your face. (I could swim slowly without the strap.) They are amazing, by far the best racing goggles out there. No foam to peal. Small enough not to fall off during a dive. And held together with string so you can adjust them perfectly to your face. They were also dirt cheap. But without any soft parts they are unforgiving to the point of racism. If your skull is even a slightly different shape than the Nordic/Viking/Swedish ideal, the goggles will not sit on your eye socket properly. On Asian people they tend to leak unless you tighten them painfully. On many black people they tend to rotate and climb into the eye socket. To nobody's surprise, they have kept the "Swedish" name because, in this case, any racial connotation is very appropriate.
https://malmsten.com/en/products/p/swim-goggles/swedish-gogg... https://alltides.com/products/lunettes-de-natation-swedish-b...
(If you buy these, ditch the stock straps. Nobody uses them because they rot/age very quickly. Use silicon string.)
(I'm aware of the multifocal glasses mentioned in the article; they didn't work well for me.)
Going out foraging and being able to identify plants and fungi by simply resting my vision on something for a pause is the sci Fi tech I actually want
I typically have a pair of mild readers that I leave on the desk and carry a pair of the stronger ones around for reading my phone, restaurant menus, etc.
Note if you wear glasses you can "focus" them to some extent by sliding them up and down your nose.