Nike your creative genius is not showing.

if you all think NIKE is that bad and offers such horrible quality then why keep coming here and why keep buying the products? Sure the marketing is a key factor but if they were as bad as some portray people would not come back year after year.
 
if you all think NIKE is that bad and offers such horrible quality then why keep coming here and why keep buying the products? Sure the marketing is a key factor but if they were as bad as some portray people would not come back year after year. And really a "joke" in the running community? I think the Bowerman line is ranked very high in tests by real runners. The Lunar Glide was voted best new shoe by runners world magazine last year. What are any other companies doing that are pushing the envelope? Fact is in footwear tech it really cant advance as fast as it was in the '90s. It takes smaller steps, flywire, and fuse for example.
 
if you all think NIKE is that bad and offers such horrible quality then why keep coming here and why keep buying the products? Sure the marketing is a key factor but if they were as bad as some portray people would not come back year after year. And really a "joke" in the running community? I think the Bowerman line is ranked very high in tests by real runners. The Lunar Glide was voted best new shoe by runners world magazine last year. What are any other companies doing that are pushing the envelope? Fact is in footwear tech it really cant advance as fast as it was in the '90s. It takes smaller steps, flywire, and fuse for example.
 
There are many things I dislike about NIKE right now, including Brand Jordan as a whole and the majority of NIKE retro products.  But when it comes to research and development, NIKE is still the most innovative footwear company on the planet by a long shot.  Honestly, who even comes close?  Adidas and Reebok haven't made significant advancements in design, materials, or technology in a decade.  You may not like Flywire, Lunarlite, IPS, or any other recent update, but they aren't the same old same old. 

Yes, there have been many "HYPER" models since the inception of the Hyperdunk in 2008.  It is a very common practice to incorporate statement level technology and design elements across a product line at various pricepoints, including takedowns.  In the 80's and 90's, many Air Jordan models shared design language with NIKE Basketball shoes.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...E-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBS_en&ndsp=20&tbs=isch:1         


http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBS_en&tbs=isch:1
 
There are many things I dislike about NIKE right now, including Brand Jordan as a whole and the majority of NIKE retro products.  But when it comes to research and development, NIKE is still the most innovative footwear company on the planet by a long shot.  Honestly, who even comes close?  Adidas and Reebok haven't made significant advancements in design, materials, or technology in a decade.  You may not like Flywire, Lunarlite, IPS, or any other recent update, but they aren't the same old same old. 

Yes, there have been many "HYPER" models since the inception of the Hyperdunk in 2008.  It is a very common practice to incorporate statement level technology and design elements across a product line at various pricepoints, including takedowns.  In the 80's and 90's, many Air Jordan models shared design language with NIKE Basketball shoes.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...E-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBS_en&ndsp=20&tbs=isch:1         


http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBS_en&tbs=isch:1
 
Originally Posted by CWK


There are many things I dislike about NIKE right now, including Brand Jordan as a whole and the majority of NIKE retro products.  But when it comes to research and development, NIKE is still the most innovative footwear company on the planet by a long shot.  Honestly, who even comes close?  Adidas and Reebok haven't made significant advancements in design, materials, or technology in a decade.  You may not like Flywire, Lunarlite, IPS, or any other recent update, but they aren't the same old same old. 

Yes, there have been many "HYPER" models since the inception of the Hyperdunk in 2008.  It is a very common practice to incorporate statement level technology and design elements across a product line at various pricepoints, including takedowns.  In the 80's and 90's, many Air Jordan models shared design language with NIKE Basketball shoes.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...E-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBS_en&ndsp=20&tbs=isch:1         


http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBS_en&tbs=isch:1
Click to expand...


Again, using materials that payless was already using, then throwing in zoom air isn't exactly innovation. Calling plastic shoes "innovative" is simply a marketing term for Nike. It is cost effective, which is smart, but slapping a buck sixty price tag on a plastic hoops shoe, it downright outrageous. I understand that it is expensive to use high quality materials these days, but if a shoe is going to be that expensive, at least let quality craftmanship, high durability using classic designs, then versatility be the justification. I can understand why many kids like Jordan retro shoes though. P:eer pressure does move that product, but at least those shoes RESEMBLE what true innovation used to represent.

I am not going to defend Adidas here on Niketalk, as there'd be no need. But what I will say is quality and durability does outshine innovation, and adidas is waaaaay ahead of Nike in this department, especially for my dollar. In this economy, throwing your money away at hype, is simply stupid.
 
Originally Posted by CWK


There are many things I dislike about NIKE right now, including Brand Jordan as a whole and the majority of NIKE retro products.  But when it comes to research and development, NIKE is still the most innovative footwear company on the planet by a long shot.  Honestly, who even comes close?  Adidas and Reebok haven't made significant advancements in design, materials, or technology in a decade.  You may not like Flywire, Lunarlite, IPS, or any other recent update, but they aren't the same old same old. 

Yes, there have been many "HYPER" models since the inception of the Hyperdunk in 2008.  It is a very common practice to incorporate statement level technology and design elements across a product line at various pricepoints, including takedowns.  In the 80's and 90's, many Air Jordan models shared design language with NIKE Basketball shoes.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...E-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBS_en&ndsp=20&tbs=isch:1         


http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBS_en&tbs=isch:1
Click to expand...


Again, using materials that payless was already using, then throwing in zoom air isn't exactly innovation. Calling plastic shoes "innovative" is simply a marketing term for Nike. It is cost effective, which is smart, but slapping a buck sixty price tag on a plastic hoops shoe, it downright outrageous. I understand that it is expensive to use high quality materials these days, but if a shoe is going to be that expensive, at least let quality craftmanship, high durability using classic designs, then versatility be the justification. I can understand why many kids like Jordan retro shoes though. P:eer pressure does move that product, but at least those shoes RESEMBLE what true innovation used to represent.

I am not going to defend Adidas here on Niketalk, as there'd be no need. But what I will say is quality and durability does outshine innovation, and adidas is waaaaay ahead of Nike in this department, especially for my dollar. In this economy, throwing your money away at hype, is simply stupid.
 
I really think that people overblow this "quality" issue. I think that for the most part if you take all shoes by the major companies as a whole the quality is the same. Shoes last me the same amount of time now as they did before. I honestly believe that if we had the internet in the early 90's we would see the same complaints..."Man the shoes in the '80's lasted longer and had better quality"

Nat...what shoes are you calling plastic? Is it the synthetic leather? I am not sure I follow. I guess my question is what do you people want? Because year after year NIKE is making more money and giving the masses what they want. Its a different time now people are less likely to buy the crazy stuff. The zig tech is a good example. Its doing ok but it scares some people away. And lets be honest its really not that ground breaking, a big step for Reebok yes but not that groundbreaking. And adidas in my opinion is offering NOTHING. NIKE gives the most choices and honestly the best choices.

There is not alot that can be done with shoes that will not have some nod to the past. I am not sure how much further shoes can go innovate wise, I mean look at those Athletic Propulsion shoes, they claimed a larger vertical and as far as I know they are flopping.

I guess I am not sure what people want in the shoes, because they are offering me what I want now and am happy. I think there is enough innovation going on (hyperdunk, lunar, fuse technology, ID, etc) I just think that people want more that what can be given.
 
I really think that people overblow this "quality" issue. I think that for the most part if you take all shoes by the major companies as a whole the quality is the same. Shoes last me the same amount of time now as they did before. I honestly believe that if we had the internet in the early 90's we would see the same complaints..."Man the shoes in the '80's lasted longer and had better quality"

Nat...what shoes are you calling plastic? Is it the synthetic leather? I am not sure I follow. I guess my question is what do you people want? Because year after year NIKE is making more money and giving the masses what they want. Its a different time now people are less likely to buy the crazy stuff. The zig tech is a good example. Its doing ok but it scares some people away. And lets be honest its really not that ground breaking, a big step for Reebok yes but not that groundbreaking. And adidas in my opinion is offering NOTHING. NIKE gives the most choices and honestly the best choices.

There is not alot that can be done with shoes that will not have some nod to the past. I am not sure how much further shoes can go innovate wise, I mean look at those Athletic Propulsion shoes, they claimed a larger vertical and as far as I know they are flopping.

I guess I am not sure what people want in the shoes, because they are offering me what I want now and am happy. I think there is enough innovation going on (hyperdunk, lunar, fuse technology, ID, etc) I just think that people want more that what can be given.
 
BTW, plastic shoes..



hyperdunk-2010-5.jpg
v




vv  
 
see Nat, maybe I am just too selective in what I buy (Nike wise) to understand your point. My choices are quality, durability, comfort, and cushioning all bundled into one package. What others are buying, it's not the same.

The funny thing for me right now is that you can walk into any Nike Factory Outlet, take the label and name off of these shoes, and you'd be walking into a payless shoe source shoe store all over again. I had payless shoes growing up and I paid the payless price. Nike fans, on the other hand, are paying that premium, and for what? 95% of the shoes did feel cheap , had that plastic feel to them, but people still ate it up. Payless gets blasted, but Nike gets rewarded. You have one place charging $20 for a shoe, and another charging $80? Why isnt Nike getting roasted at the stakes right about now?

My AIR comments had the underlying basis that a quality upper material was already met, and all that was lacking was a proper cushioning system. And for that arguments sake, I'm wrong. If you include materials and quality into the creative genius pool, and couple that with poor cushioning choices, you have nothing more than a repackaged Starter shoe from Kmart.

But I do believe, in general, that Nike is riding the AIR train and taking it for all that it's worth. Slap air soles on a milk carton flip flop and we have a winner. My prior comments gave Nike that benefit of doubt on select models stating that the upper wasn't so much of a issues, as was the cushioning setup, where you only have one zoom air in the heel and totally neglect the forefoot.

When I talk cushioning, materials are thrown out of the equation, as there really isnt much of an argument if you include materials into the equation. But I guess there is some lack of creativity when you go a certain route with shotty materials
 
see Nat, maybe I am just too selective in what I buy (Nike wise) to understand your point. My choices are quality, durability, comfort, and cushioning all bundled into one package. What others are buying, it's not the same.

The funny thing for me right now is that you can walk into any Nike Factory Outlet, take the label and name off of these shoes, and you'd be walking into a payless shoe source shoe store all over again. I had payless shoes growing up and I paid the payless price. Nike fans, on the other hand, are paying that premium, and for what? 95% of the shoes did feel cheap , had that plastic feel to them, but people still ate it up. Payless gets blasted, but Nike gets rewarded. You have one place charging $20 for a shoe, and another charging $80? Why isnt Nike getting roasted at the stakes right about now?

My AIR comments had the underlying basis that a quality upper material was already met, and all that was lacking was a proper cushioning system. And for that arguments sake, I'm wrong. If you include materials and quality into the creative genius pool, and couple that with poor cushioning choices, you have nothing more than a repackaged Starter shoe from Kmart.

But I do believe, in general, that Nike is riding the AIR train and taking it for all that it's worth. Slap air soles on a milk carton flip flop and we have a winner. My prior comments gave Nike that benefit of doubt on select models stating that the upper wasn't so much of a issues, as was the cushioning setup, where you only have one zoom air in the heel and totally neglect the forefoot.

When I talk cushioning, materials are thrown out of the equation, as there really isnt much of an argument if you include materials into the equation. But I guess there is some lack of creativity when you go a certain route with shotty materials
 
i wholeheartedly agree that nike's quality and even performance have sucked lately. all of the hyper shoes are made from plastic...they don't even try to make it feel like a leather or suede. they are getting super skimpy with all of their cushioning technologies that they advertise the *++* out of, and the durability over the last couple of years has sucked.

the only reason i havent stopped buying nikes is because i always get shin splints in adidas, and i wasn't a fan of the hexride from reebok. ill probably give the zigtechs a chance when the basketball ones release. other than that, the basketball market is very limited. its not like the running market where you have dozens of brands to choose from.

i had the lebron 7s, a plastic shoe with a $160 price tag, break on me after 10-12 wears. lets not forget about the hyperizes and og hyperdunks, $110 and $125 and made of plastic, with their forefoot lunar foam that had a useful life of 3 weeks or so. then there is the soldier 3 which i loved, but had the worst fit ever for a shoe and the forefoot zoom was super tiny and bottomed out fairly quickly. add in the hype machine kobes with their nickel sized forefoot zoom and plastic upper for $125, and you have a line up full of *++*.

if nike wants to make shoes with $30 quality, then thats what i'll pay for them even if it means being a season behind on the court. i can get stuff off of the hash wall at the outlets and at ross for cheap, so if it falls apart on me after a month or two (which it will) i dont really care because i didn't spend the kind of money that would warrant me to expect a quality shoe.
 
i wholeheartedly agree that nike's quality and even performance have sucked lately. all of the hyper shoes are made from plastic...they don't even try to make it feel like a leather or suede. they are getting super skimpy with all of their cushioning technologies that they advertise the *++* out of, and the durability over the last couple of years has sucked.

the only reason i havent stopped buying nikes is because i always get shin splints in adidas, and i wasn't a fan of the hexride from reebok. ill probably give the zigtechs a chance when the basketball ones release. other than that, the basketball market is very limited. its not like the running market where you have dozens of brands to choose from.

i had the lebron 7s, a plastic shoe with a $160 price tag, break on me after 10-12 wears. lets not forget about the hyperizes and og hyperdunks, $110 and $125 and made of plastic, with their forefoot lunar foam that had a useful life of 3 weeks or so. then there is the soldier 3 which i loved, but had the worst fit ever for a shoe and the forefoot zoom was super tiny and bottomed out fairly quickly. add in the hype machine kobes with their nickel sized forefoot zoom and plastic upper for $125, and you have a line up full of *++*.

if nike wants to make shoes with $30 quality, then thats what i'll pay for them even if it means being a season behind on the court. i can get stuff off of the hash wall at the outlets and at ross for cheap, so if it falls apart on me after a month or two (which it will) i dont really care because i didn't spend the kind of money that would warrant me to expect a quality shoe.
 
WallyHopp wrote:
see Nat, maybe I am just too selective in what I buy (Nike wise) to understand your point. My choices are quality, durability, comfort, and cushioning all bundled into one package. What others are buying, it's not the same.

The funny thing for me right now is that you can walk into any Nike Factory Outlet, take the label and name off of these shoes, and you'd be walking into a payless shoe source shoe store all over again. I had payless shoes growing up and I paid the payless price. Nike fans, on the other hand, are paying that premium, and for what? 95% of the shoes did feel cheap , had that plastic feel to them, but people still ate it up. Payless gets blasted, but Nike gets rewarded. You have one place charging $20 for a shoe, and another charging $80? Why isnt Nike getting roasted at the stakes right about now?

My AIR comments had the underlying basis that a quality upper material was already met, and all that was lacking was a proper cushioning system. And for that arguments sake, I'm wrong. If you include materials and quality into the creative genius pool, and couple that with poor cushioning choices, you have nothing more than a repackaged Starter shoe from Kmart.

But I do believe, in general, that Nike is riding the AIR train and taking it for all that it's worth. Slap air soles on a milk carton flip flop and we have a winner. My prior comments gave Nike that benefit of doubt on select models stating that the upper wasn't so much of a issues, as was the cushioning setup, where you only have one zoom air in the heel and totally neglect the forefoot.

When I talk cushioning, materials are thrown out of the equation, as there really isnt much of an argument if you include materials into the equation. But I guess there is some lack of creativity when you go a certain route with shotty materials
I am selective as well, incredibly so. Since we are in the same boat in regard to choice, I guess we understand each other. That said, I've seen some beautiful Nike shoes, some looking great while they are sitting on the shelves. But I wait a bit, then wanting to see someone wearing them on court, streets or in the gym. I like to see how they wear, if they are worth the investment. More often than not, they aren't. It's a shame, because I love hot looking kicks. I see the Kobe hype on here and then on ISS,  then do not understand it. I am insulted when a company makes a plastic shoe, then slapping a players name on it with the high price tag, then expecting me to consider it. Luckily, or unluckily I got a pair of the Kobe IV's for free, along with the Hyperdunk. I played in both, then played hard. I was seriously disappointed in both for durability, then impact protection. So I am not simply talking out of my butt on this topic.




  
Click to expand...
 
WallyHopp wrote:
see Nat, maybe I am just too selective in what I buy (Nike wise) to understand your point. My choices are quality, durability, comfort, and cushioning all bundled into one package. What others are buying, it's not the same.

The funny thing for me right now is that you can walk into any Nike Factory Outlet, take the label and name off of these shoes, and you'd be walking into a payless shoe source shoe store all over again. I had payless shoes growing up and I paid the payless price. Nike fans, on the other hand, are paying that premium, and for what? 95% of the shoes did feel cheap , had that plastic feel to them, but people still ate it up. Payless gets blasted, but Nike gets rewarded. You have one place charging $20 for a shoe, and another charging $80? Why isnt Nike getting roasted at the stakes right about now?

My AIR comments had the underlying basis that a quality upper material was already met, and all that was lacking was a proper cushioning system. And for that arguments sake, I'm wrong. If you include materials and quality into the creative genius pool, and couple that with poor cushioning choices, you have nothing more than a repackaged Starter shoe from Kmart.

But I do believe, in general, that Nike is riding the AIR train and taking it for all that it's worth. Slap air soles on a milk carton flip flop and we have a winner. My prior comments gave Nike that benefit of doubt on select models stating that the upper wasn't so much of a issues, as was the cushioning setup, where you only have one zoom air in the heel and totally neglect the forefoot.

When I talk cushioning, materials are thrown out of the equation, as there really isnt much of an argument if you include materials into the equation. But I guess there is some lack of creativity when you go a certain route with shotty materials
I am selective as well, incredibly so. Since we are in the same boat in regard to choice, I guess we understand each other. That said, I've seen some beautiful Nike shoes, some looking great while they are sitting on the shelves. But I wait a bit, then wanting to see someone wearing them on court, streets or in the gym. I like to see how they wear, if they are worth the investment. More often than not, they aren't. It's a shame, because I love hot looking kicks. I see the Kobe hype on here and then on ISS,  then do not understand it. I am insulted when a company makes a plastic shoe, then slapping a players name on it with the high price tag, then expecting me to consider it. Luckily, or unluckily I got a pair of the Kobe IV's for free, along with the Hyperdunk. I played in both, then played hard. I was seriously disappointed in both for durability, then impact protection. So I am not simply talking out of my butt on this topic.




  
Click to expand...
 
if the 5s are good enough for Kobe and Hyper Fuse/Dunk are good enough for the majority of the L it does make you think though. Now I know they wear custom orthotics but other then that I'm pretty sure they're the same quality as the ones in Footlocker.
 
if the 5s are good enough for Kobe and Hyper Fuse/Dunk are good enough for the majority of the L it does make you think though. Now I know they wear custom orthotics but other then that I'm pretty sure they're the same quality as the ones in Footlocker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
nike trainer sc 1987-1992
Replies
3
Views
545
bknowbles
bknowbles
therealest1
Patta x Nike Air Huarache Plus
Replies
2
Views
775
modus47
modus47
B
Nike Air Cross Trainer II Low/Mid-High
Replies
2
Views
540
1978S
1978S
therealest1
Nike Air DT Max 96 (Deion Sanders)
Replies
17
Views
2K
therealest1
therealest1
dblplay1212
StockX scamming? How is this legal?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
4K
aepps20
aepps20

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom