low 16 height progressive

[mrba]

I agree. I think its our professional obligation to educate the customer as to the ins and outs of their situation.

After that its their money! (and as long as its green I'll take it thank you)

[Laurie]

I completely agree...education is key.

jediron: Maybe I should have used a different term than "those who know optics..." ( I did not mean to offend anyone in that statement...)

I am finding, however, that more and more "optical geeks" (meant in a good way!) are getting hip to Shamir lenses.

Instead of debating, let me ask you to compare the following with your lens of choice and Shamir Genesis or Piccolo:

(I am going under the assumption that your lens of choice is also a design that uses multi, variable insets, right and left design and symmetry...)

I would ask you to campare this additional criteria:

1. Ratio of excessive cylinder anywhere in the lens. (Ratio of 1:1 means that the amount of excessive cyl will not exceed the add power...Ratio of 2:1 means that excess cyl will be double the add, etc...)

2. Placement of excessive cylinder (unwanted marginal astigmatism)...is it above the 180 line?

(this is an important factor...topography charts in 0.50 D. steps will show differences very quickly)

3. Vertical dimension of FULL add

4. Corridor length

5. Reading width



A great way to study and compare these, and additional criteria is to look at the recent paper by Dr. James Sheedy, OD, PhD on progressive lenses (February issue, Journal of the Optometric Association of America)...it is a white paper/blind study of various progressive lenses. What an eye opener!



: )

Laurie

[Chris Ryser]

Laurie said:

I completely agree...education is key.

1: )

Laurie

It just looks to me that the main education these days comes from manufacturers advertising to the public and from salesreps to the optical retailers.

[Laurie]

Hi Chris,

It does seem that way, doesn't it?

I know that we have increased our enrollment in our college opticianry program (over triple!), but we still have work to do.

Even with increases at optical colleges around the country, most people do not go through a formal education process to become an optician. Learning optical theories in a college environment adds alot. Then, the hands on learning is even more valuable.

I am happy to see education from any venue...as long as it is optically legit, not just marketing.

: )

Laurie

[Pete Hanlin]

Although personally my training came via experience and a lot of self-directed study, I agree that formal education holds the key to any real future our profession may have.

That out of the way, it is unfortunate that eye care providers are not better informed regarding the optical characteristics of progressive addition lenses. Unfortunately, articles like the aforementioned "study" (Progressive Addition Lenses- Matching the Specific Lens to Patient Needs) do not help this situation.

I do not wish to disparage a well-intentioned article. By way of clarification, however, this "study" did not involve any actual wearers- lenses were measured in a static environment using a Rotlex lens analyzer. Additionally, the measures used for a PALs "performance" were zone sizes and length of progression- both of these indicators are outdated and easily disproven as predictive assessments.

You fit what you fit and determine the quality of the product based upon the responses you receive from your patient. As Cowboy stated so eloquently, some patients will return because the product does not meet their needs. Others will not realize that vision has been compromised (i.e., they "get used" to it). Still others will realize the compromise and remain happy because they "got what they wanted."

As for design quality, each manufacturer will highlight whatever characteristics they feel show their product in the best light. I can certainly show you some graphics which show the "superiority" of Varilux designs. Hoya, Kodak, Rodenstock, Seiko, Shamir, Sola, and Zeiss have nifty graphics to show off their product's performance as well. At the end of the day, people who truly "know optics" realize there are several good designs out there- some perhaps being better than others- and are able to discern, describe, and dispense each accordingly.

So for those of you going to Vision Expo, flag Laurie and/or I down and you'll learn why Shamir (or Varilux, depending upon whom you manage to flag down first) lenses are superior to anything else on the market.

PS- The official and final launch date for Varilux Ellipse is 12 April- although product will be flowing from the distribution center prior to that date.

[Darryl Meister]

Most of you realize that I generally don't involve myself in product-oriented debates since I work for a lens manufacturer. After all, I'm not here to sell you guys anything, and I don't want to call into question my objectivity. However, it would be remiss of me not to address a couple of points in this discussion.

ESSILOR invented the progressive lenses

That's actually a myth. Though they were responsible for the first commercially successful progressives.

I'm not sure what you are referring to as far as manufacturing specs are concerned, but this information came to me directly from the technical departments from each lens company.

Keep in mind that few manufacturers adhere to the same standard of corridor measurement, so if you asked each of them separately for their own figures, they probably wouldn't be very consistent with each other. Some may measure to 85% of the add power (Essilor), some to 95% (SOLA), some to the add power less 0.12 (AO), some to the near circle, some using surface power, some using front vertex power, and so on. Also, the "length of the corridor" is only so meaningful, as I discuss below.

As a rule, I do not like short corridor PALs (for the very reason described above- a quality progression does take a certain amount of space to accomplish)... In my opinion, only the XS and perhaps the Zeiss lens are currently truly "short" progressions. The other lenses mentioned here (and on the market) accomplish "shortness" via a variety of questionable design methodologies.

I disagree that lenses using other means to accomplish good small frame performance represent "questionable design methodologies," for the very reason you give above: Short corridors must compromise "quality" (in the optical sense). As you know, there is no magic dust that we, as manufacturers, can sprinkle on these lenses to "squish" the optics into a shorter corridor length. Optical compromises must be made elsewhere.

Unfortunately, many manufacturers have fallen into the trap of marketing on the basis of corridor lengths, only, which aren't particularly meaningful on their own. While corridor length is obviously one indication of near performance, a short corridor is inconsequential if the size or width of the actual near zone is not adequate in small frame sizes. Moreover, if the compromises made elsewhere in the lens in order to achieve that short corridor do not respect the visual demands of the wearer, what have you really accomplished with that short corridor?

As eyecare professionals, we should be cognizant of the fact that a short corridor alone, is by no means an assurance of performance. Rather than quote a single arbitrary figure, you'll see SOLA's small frame comparisons demonstrate a measure that is truly relevant: actual ray-traced optical performance for the wearer with the lens in its position of wearer. Designing a progressive lens with a short corridor length is not difficult to do. Designing a progressive lens that performs well in small frames can be quite a challenge.

I would also argue that AO Compact is, indeed, a true "short corridor" progressive. And, for that matter, the first lens specifically designed for small frame performance. Not only does AO Compact have a truly short corridor, but it also has a rather large near zone high up in the lens while maintaining generous distance vision and an extremely soft periphery. Consequently, it was designed to work well in small frames, not to simply provide a "short corridor" figure.

Also, the corridor length (to 95% of the add) of Rodenstock life XS and AO Compact are virtually identical according to our (SOLA's) measurement samples.

one thing I have noticed...people who REALLY KNOW OPTICS love the Shamir line

I tend to think that I know a thing or two about optics, and I'm kind of partial to our line. ;)

Best regards,
Darryl

[mrba]

Darryl,
I am of the understanding that XS is fully aspheric in the distance and compact is not. I have a way to confirm this without technical fanfare, but I thought I would ask you if this true or not.

I agree with a lot of what you said. And to add one thing, Shamir makes most of the molds for most progressives anyway. Infer from that what you will.

[Darryl Meister]

I am of the understanding that XS is fully aspheric in the distance and compact is not. I have a way to confirm this without technical fanfare, but I thought I would ask you if this true or not.

Actually, it depends on what you mean when you say "aspheric." In the "basic progressive design" sense of the word, AO Compact is actually more aspheric than life XS, with a softer distance. But if you are referring to asphericity in the sense of neutralizing off-center aberrations, as is the case with a single vision aspheric lens, it would depend upon the lens material.

AO Compact in hard resin uses best form base curves, which aren't particularly flat, so it does not require asphericity. (This is the same case with single vision lenses, which only benefit from asphericity if they are flattened below best form base curve recommendations.) AO Compact in 1.6 high-index, on the other hand, uses slightly flatter curves, and employs the appropriate amount of aspheric optimization.

And to add one thing, Shamir makes most of the molds for most progressives anyway.

Well, if it makes you feel any better, they certainly don't make ours. ;)

Best regards,
Darryl

[Chris Ryser]

mrba said:
............................................ And to add one thing, Shamir makes most of the molds for most progressives anyway. Infer from that what you will.

This thread starts looking like the battle of the GREEN GIANTS


Here is each one of biggies defending their status and quality and design of their products.

Lets not forget it is all a matter of money, money, money !!!!!!!!!!!!

In the old day's of glass lenses it was all a matter of design, ..........then labour intensive manufacturing with the use of extensive machinery to grind and surface the lenses or blanks.

Not anymore .............these day's. When you actually think that the most labour intensive lenses these days are the CR39's because you will have to fill the mold with the monomer and after curing you have to open them and clean the mold.

Enter polycarbonate lenses which are not touched by a human hand until finished, hard coated and packaged.

These lenses are made by a fully automated injection process like you would make childrens toy's in plastic. The moulding machine spits them out in batches of 4, 6 or 8 lenses every few seconds.

For plastic lenses the manufacturing cost factor is the SAME for a progressive, a straight top or a single vision lens once you have the moulds. And that goes for any type of plastic lens.

Do we have to wonder that the manufacturers are getting touchy when their product is critizised and they might loose a few sales?

In today's age manufacturers of lenses are turning much higher profits than in the old labour intensive days, and it shows in the huge amounts of money being spent by advertising in all sort of professional or other magazines, often to the end user.

Before spending money, you have to make it and our beloved lens manufacturers are making it and react very fast when being attacked.

[Darryl Meister]

Here is each one of biggies defending their status and quality and design of their products...

Chris, I would say that you completely misinterpreted the spirit of these three pages of posts.

In the old day's of glass lenses it was all a matter of design...In today's age manufacturers of lenses are turning much higher profits than in the old labour intensive days, and it shows in the huge amounts of money being spent by advertising in all sort of professional or other magazines, often to the end user.

While the landscape of lens manufacturing has changed slightly over the years, the actual business really hasn't changed much at all. We have always invested in research and development. We have always pursued newer, better lens designs and materials. We have always fostered relationships with our customers. We have always sought to improve manufacturing efficiency while reducing operating costs. We have always had consultants discuss the technical merits of our products. We have always offered value-added services to complement our products. We have always "advertised in professional magazines." And so on.

As far as "labor intensity" and lens materials go, our industry has had mass-production capabilities, even for glass, since the early 1900s. Obviously some products are more involved than others, but that hasn't changed much. You also seem to underestimate the extensive costs and overhead involved in our operations, while overestimating how our profit margins compare to lenses from twenty or thirty years ago. For that matter, and as with most businesses, many of our costs have little to do with the actual manufacturing process.

You speak as though you believe that lens manufacturers are "rolling in the dough" or something, which is obviously not the case. For that matter, in any free market with as much competition and as little growth as our industry has, it is extremely difficult for any manufacturer to make "money, money, money." Now, I can't speak for the other lens manufacturers, and certainly not for the frame or contact lens industries (which were apparently overlooked by your post), but I'm relatively certain that we all have to work very hard to be successful -- much like our customers.

Best regards,
Darryl

[mrba]

Got Bread?

Perhaps if manufacturers wouldn't spend their "dough" on a business they don't understand (labs), they would have more "dough":p

[Darryl Meister]

Perhaps if manufacturers wouldn't spend their "dough" on a business they don't understand (labs), they would have more "dough"

Well, this is the part where Pete should probably jump in during the tag-team match. ;) However, I will add that, back in the "good ole' days," manufacturers actually owned the majority of surfacing labs. Bausch & Lomb and American Optical, in particular, ran quite a few of them. But certainly the two industries have diverged over the years.

Best regards,
Darryl

[mrba]

its actually happened more than several times in the good ol days... and B&L for one got out of the biz because they just couldn't get into it in the first place! Other noteable failures include US shoe, Revlon, and AO.

[Darryl Meister]

B&L for one got out of the biz because they just couldn't get into it in the first place

I kind of thought that they had gotten so far into it, that the FTC came and pulled them out. ;) Monopolies and that sort of thing.

Best regards,
Darryl

[Chris Ryser]

Darryl Meister said:
;) However, I will add that, back in the "good ole' days," manufacturers actually owned the majority of surfacing labs. .............................................
Best regards,
Darryl

How about the "present ole days "..........................?


ESSILOR owns loads of them .............world wide

ZEISS owns Loads of them .....................world wide

HOYA owns loads of them ..................world wide

SOLA owns lots of other manufacturers people don't even know about

Darryl you try to make them look like the angels that have to protect the good old world to keep the vision industry going.

The trend these days is called DOMINATION

[Darryl Meister]

How about the "present ole days "...

Actually, my point to mrba was simply that manufacturers have been intimately familiar with the surfacing side of the business before, and that modern lab acquisitions are certainly not new. I'm not advocating it or condemning it. Since it hasn't been something that SOLA has actively pursued in the past, I really can't comment on the efficacy or long-term implications of this strategy, myself.

Darryl you try to make them look like the angels that have to protect the good old world to keep the vision industry going.

Your reference to "angels" seems to hint at another underlying theme in your recent posts on this topic: the struggle of good versus evil. Surely you aren't insinuating that lens manufacturers are evil? ;) Unfortunately, it's nothing quite that dramatic. It's just a business. And I'm sure that each of us hopes to put out a good product, turn a bit of a profit, and remain in business -- preferably without summoning the forces of darkness. ;)

SOLA owns lots of other manufacturers people don't even know about...

Apparently, including me. ;)

Best regards,
Darryl

[shanbaum]

Chris Ryser said:

The trend these days is called DOMINATION

Ooh.

[Pete Hanlin]

I agree with a lot of what you said. And to add one thing, Shamir makes most of the molds for most progressives anyway. Infer from that what you will.
Actually, I'm pretty sure I know exactly what you are inferring- and the source you got it from. I'd point out that a false claim is as easy to speak as a true one (perhaps even easier, because you can spin whatever tale you desire into a false claim). My grandad always said, believe half of what you see and none of what you hear. The optical business has proven him correct over and over again.

Well, this is the part where Pete should probably jump in during the tag-team match. However, I will add that, back in the "good ole' days," manufacturers actually owned the majority of surfacing labs. Bausch & Lomb and American Optical, in particular, ran quite a few of them.
Sorry, Darryl- I was out speaking on the behalf of several independent Varilux distributors all last week... To add to your point, in most countries manufacturer-owned laboratories handle the vast majority of their company's Rx lens processing. In the United States, we have a diverse market which includes retail and independently owned laboratories as well. Anyone thinking companies like SOLA or Essilor "don't understand the lab business" should really tour some of the huge facilities in other countries (I was in one last month that cranks out 7,500 jobs a day- pretty awesome technology). So, tag Darryl- you're it.
:)

Actually, it depends on what you mean when you say "aspheric." In the "basic progressive design" sense of the word, AO Compact is actually more aspheric than life XS, with a softer distance. But if you are referring to asphericity in the sense of neutralizing off-center aberrations, as is the case with a single vision aspheric lens, it would depend upon the lens material.
Actually, we've run some wearer comparisons (which, as is the norm, have been challenged by the competitor manufacturer) between Compact and Comfort. Lenses were fit at 17mm, and Comfort scored higher in every category measured. Of course, since this was an Essilor study, one has to question the objectivity of the findings (well, I wouldn't, but I work for Essilor, so... 8^). Having looked at the power profile and measurements of Compact's sphere slopes and some other characteristics of the design, I believe the study was probably pretty close to dead on. While I wouldn't put AO Compact in the "questionable design practices" category, I would reaffirm that there are certianly some PALs that are such. I mean, when the ADD power begins 4mm above the fitting cross- or when you don't reach your total add power anywhere within the near verification circle- one has to start wondering...

As I indicated earlier, every manufacturer is going to be able to defend the merits of their own designs using one measure or another. For example, the emphasis on Varilux Ellipse is going to be the very short progression and the width of distance field. This combination yielded the best results in wearer studies, and Essilor feels strongly that this will become the premium short-corridor product. SOLA/AO have other design theories- like bipolarity and polyvalence- which they will emphasize.

As long as everyone takes the "high road" and speaks to the strengths of their own designs, than all is fair in love, war, and optics. Unfortunately, some companies do not adhere to the lofty path and attempt to improve their sales through the slander of other products or companies. History shows this is not a strategy for long-term success (things like investment in R&D and building relationships with your customers are).

[mrba]

I figured the "other countries" point would come up. That doesn't compare apples to apples. Eyecare and expectations of manufacturers are so different in other countries. Not saying which is worse or better... But I rather prefer a doctor that isn't employed by a manufacturer, and required to use their lenses to give me his unbiased oopinion, as to what my lens and coating needs are.

As for historical anti trust considerations... were you trying to make a point in favor or against manufacturers?

[Joann Raytar]

Chris Ryser said:
This thread starts looking like the battle of the GREEN GIANTS

Here is each one of biggies defending their status and quality and design of their products.

Not that he needs defending, but I think most of the old time OptiBoarders would agree that Darryl is the last to toot his own horn. He probably felt he could honestly add to the thread. If you note, Darryl rarely enters into any form of a "battle of the brands" type of discussion.

Darryl is probably one of the most Optically respected OptiBoarders as far as education and the like. I think he posts more from the vantage point of an educator than a marketer.

[Chris Ryser]

Jo said:
Not that he needs defending, ....................

...........but you are doing it anyhow. I wish I had some brave defenders sometimes out there in cyberspace.

Jo said:
He probably felt he could honestly add to the thread. If you note, Darryl rarely enters into any form of a "battle of the brands" type of discussion.

I don't think that this is/was a battle of the brands. I am actually of the opinion that they (the major manufacturers, optical conglomates) all cook in the same kitchen of the Grand Hotel, only one works for the restaurant downstairs and the others in other areas of the complex and compete for the available customers.

Jo said:
Darryl is probably one of the most Optically respected OptiBoarders as far as education and the like.

I agree with you. Darryl is a gentleman and we are not insulting each other.

The remarks made in above postings are not meant to insult anybody personally. If some harsh word are said in an opinion against or for a corporation, in french they call them "Societe Anonyme" which is means the owners are anonymous shareholders.

You can not insult somedody that is anonymous, but a corporation alway's sends out a spokesman to defend or promote their policy, product or or any other company opinion.

And we have seen that on this thread if you go back all the postings to the start.

Everybody claims to have the best and newest and latest design in short corridor progressive lenses.

One qualifaction they all have together, is that they have not been able to get rid of the lens areas that are full of distortion because it is NOT possible to do.

So I will continue wearing my progressives at cocktail hour invitations only where the "Johnny Walker"(another brand name) lets me forget the distorted peripheral vision and wear my clean clear ST35's for work

[skirk1975]

I have had great success with the Shamir Piccolo. I have fit countless people at 16mm high and I don't think I have ever had a problem. It is well priced also. Hoya Summit CD and Rodenstock XS also have good product at this height.

[mrba]

Chris,

I had a patient with high cyl and keritoconus walk out the door teary eyed looking up and to the left and right... like seeing the world for the first time. During the dispensing she said she had another 10-15 degrees peripherally. She ordered another pair.

Havn't had a dispensing like that in a long time. For all intents and purposes peripheral distortion was all but gone.

Rx was unchanged from previous lens which was Hoya wide.

Thank You Gradal Individual...

[Darryl Meister]

See, this is why I usually hang out in the Ophthalmic Optics forum. ;)

As for historical anti trust considerations... were you trying to make a point in favor or against manufacturers?

Neither, really. I'm simply pointing out that manufacturers have been quite successful at running lab operations in the past.

Darryl is probably one of the most Optically respected OptiBoarders as far as education and the like.

Thanks for the kind words, Jo.

but a corporation alway's sends out a spokesman to defend or promote their policy, product or or any other company opinion.

I tend to think of it as "stifling the spread of disinformation," which is a popular pastime on the Internet.

While I, personally, refrain from "pushing" SOLA's products on OptiBoard, for obvious reasons, it is entirely appropriate for any of us associated with lens manufacturers to clarify, reconcile, or even enhance someone's understanding of our products when the situation demands it or when we are called upon to do so. As I said earlier, it would be remiss of us not to... Not just as an Essilor or a Shamir or a SOLA employee, but as somone who understands the product well enough to do so.

As a matter of fact, though few people may realize it, I believe that one of the major benefits of this forum is having direct access to and involvement from such manufacturers. And I think it would be nice to see even more manufacturers actively participate on this forum.

*** TECHNICAL MARKETING CONTENT -- ENTER AT OWN RISK ***

Actually, we've run some wearer comparisons... between Compact and Comfort... Comfort scored higher in every category measured.

In all fairness to AO Compact (and keep in mind that I have nothing to do with technical marketing for the AO side), this study only had something like 20 people in it (so I doubt the results were statistically significant), I believe it was over a relatively short duration (which means adaptation will play a large role), many of the wearers were previous Comfort wearers to begin with (which means they were already comfortable with the design), the results will depend largely on the types of questions asked, and it was sponsored by Essilor... ;)

I seem to recall a J&J study that stated, "Presbyopes preferred Definity lenses' advanced performance 3 to 1 over [Varilux Comfort]." I suspect, however, that if you guys had your own clinical study comparing the two, the tagline would read quite differently. ;)

Having looked at the power profile and measurements of Compact's sphere slopes and some other characteristics of the design

I am assuming by "sphere slopes" you are referring to something like the gradient, or rate of change, of mean power across the surface. The distance region and periphery of AO Compact will have less over all (integrated) change in mean power than Varilux Comfort, where I believe it matters most, but immediately adjacent to the near region AO Compact will have more.

However, keep in mind that this is due to the design's approach to providing a short corridor and a high near zone, and a high gradient in this area is, in my opinion, less detrimental to vision (otherwise, flat-top wearers would be throwing their lenses at you). Consequently, given the success of AO Compact, I would say that their design choices, which by necessity require compromises, were quite sensible.

Lastly, I will say this of AO Compact and "short corridor" lenses in general:

The foreward-thinking folks at AO brought a product to the market to solve a dispensing issue that no-one else had bothered addressing. They saw a problem, and gave dispensers a solution. It was, in fact, the first progressive lens specifically designed for small frames. And it has performed very well for dispensers and wearers, alike.

Since then, however, many manufacturers have realized that it's "okay" to design a product for this kind of niche, and have scurried to jump on the "short corridor" bandwagon. And a few actually work quite well. However, marketing against other short corridor progressives solely on the basis of incremental reductions in corridor length may leave dispensers with the mistaken impression that corridor length, alone, is the only important measure of performance.

RESUME REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING

Best regards,
Darryl

[Pete Hanlin]

In all fairness to AO Compact... this study only had something like 20 people in it (so I doubt the results were statistically significant), I believe it was over a relatively short duration (which means adaptation will play a large role), many of the wearers were previous Comfort wearers to begin with (which means they were already comfortable with the design), the results will depend largely on the types of questions asked, and it was sponsored by Essilor...
Fundamentally speaking, I agree with your points (which is why I pointed out that the objectivity of the study does have to be considered since Essilor sponsored it). Questions of objectivity will arise anytime a manufacturer compares its own product to another's.

I seem to recall a J&J study that stated, "Presbyopes preferred Definity lenses' advanced performance 3 to 1 over [Varilux Comfort]." I suspect, however, that if you guys had your own clinical study comparing the two, the tagline would read quite differently.
Actually, we didn't even need to do our own comparison- after asking J&J for details regarding how their "study" was conducted (still waiting on that one), some of the ECPs who have access to both products did their own comparisons. Since I've gone to the trouble of mentioning these comparisons, you can guess which product prevailed. Its fairly easy to demonstrate that the J&J product is nothing "revolutionary," and- in fact- incorporates certain design elements known to be less acceptable to wearers.

I am assuming by "sphere slopes" you are referring to something like the gradient, or rate of change, of mean power across the surface. The distance region and periphery of AO Compact will have less over all (integrated) change in mean power than Varilux Comfort, where I believe it matters most, but immediately adjacent to the near region AO Compact will have more.
Actually, Essilor studies have shown that wearers are more sensitive to restriction of the distance periphery in smaller frames than in larger frames. In larger frames, patients are more sensitive to symmetry. According to Essilor measurements, AO Compact has a distance zone with minimal distortion that encompasses about 109 degrees (taken from the fitting cross). Using similar measurement parameters, the Varilux Ellipse zone will be about 140 degrees.

However, marketing against other short corridor progressives solely on the basis of incremental reductions in corridor length may leave dispensers with the mistaken impression that corridor length, alone, is the only important measure of performance.
On this point (and many others, I would suspect), we completely agree. The "old" measures of PAL performance (width of zones, softness of design, and more recently corridor length), have been replaced by several considerations which are addressed in modern lenses. Namely, does the design take into account the ametropia and level of presbyopia of the wearer? How symmetrical is the distortion in the lens? How smooth is the peripheral progression in the lens? And so on...

As Darryl has mentioned, the AO Compact design was launched years ago- it was the pioneer of the market, and the "foresight" of AO gave them good positioning in what has turned out to be a significant market.

In the end, having several large lens manufacturers promoting products is beneficial to the market. Each new design challenges those of competitors and leads to more R&D and new products.

I figured the "other countries" point would come up. That doesn't compare apples to apples. Eyecare and expectations of manufacturers are so different in other countries. Not saying which is worse or better... But I rather prefer a doctor that isn't employed by a manufacturer, and required to use their lenses to give me his unbiased oopinion, as to what my lens and coating needs are.
As I recall, you were the one making the accusation that manufacturer's "don't understand the lab business." Then, when it is pointed out that manufacturers ARE the lab business in most countries, you state this is irrelevent. Also, I know Essilor doesn't employ dispensing ECPs or force them to use our products (I know of no such arrangements with other manufacturers, either).

Finally (at last), I think it should be pointed out that the vast majority of PAL designs simply work. You can fit a patient with a Sola VIP (which even Darryl would admit is a rather outdated design) and many patients will be "satisfied." What we are comparing here amounts to very minute levels of performance. Fortunately, patients are always interested in purchasing products which give higher levels of performance. After all, a well maintained Chevette will get you back and forth from work pretty much as well as a Cadillac Escalade- however, the Escalade will let you rid in somewhat better comfort and may give you a little more versatility...