- 12,334
- 6,697
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2000
Take it with a grain of salt, they basically said the same thing in 2011.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
DAMNNNNN THE SALTYESSS NEWS I EVER HEARD FOR 2016... THE KID WHO WON AIR MAGS WITH ONE TICKET AND A WINNING EMAIL NOTIFICATION, JUST CHECKED IN WITH NIKE THAT HE ACTUALLY DIDNT WIN A PAIR.. YOOOOOOOOO IM DEAD
$500 A PAIR
1m pairs made
1/2 billion dollars would help cure the damn disease for good!!
#NikeGotNoLoveForTheSick
$500 A PAIR
1m pairs made
1/2 billion dollars would help cure the damn disease for good!!
#NikeGotNoLoveForTheSick
Take it with a grain of salt, they basically said the same thing in 2011.
I hope for a big Adidas comeback in the US. I love the Adidas heritage but i´m not into the performance stuff. They were so brutally big from the 60s to 80s worldwide.
And what the Nike Mag concerns, they have really done hard about all that, from the beginning in 2005. I remember when i signed this petition, they did not have the idea to bring that shoe out before. And when they did in 2011, they were 2 years late for the 20th anniversary for BTTF II. But the product was superb, except that the zylinder box "Nike Footwear" was missing (this year, too). Campaign and everything was cool, but 1500 pairs were not enough for the fans.
Then they were doing the autolacing stuff for the 2015 anniversary, they were 1 year late and missed it. Only MIchael J. Fox got the prototype to show that Marty got the shoes right on the date. Only 89 pairs!!! That showed that they had big problems with the construction and functionality and maybe they were all handmade and can not be produced in masses.
The shoe was a movie prop designed in 1988 and accidently became pop culture. Then 2005 with the petition, there was a demand and they wanted to deliver but when you are a designer, you first have the functionality. You design the functionality and you design the shape, skin, colours, material. When you have an ex movie prop and you want to make it work afterwards, you have to implement the technology into the stiff parameters of an existing shoe. With the Hyperadapt 1.0, they were free and had it much easier. They build the shoe around the technology. All these problems are in my eyes the reason they want to leave it alone now and focus on the Hyperadapt as the mass production version for the future.
But a 20.000 pairs non-lacing version for collectors and fans would still be cool, yeah. Still don´t know how much time it took to build 1500 pairs in 2011.
London auction ended at around $54k and the Crepe Protect CEO was the winner. Big drop off from Hong Kong.
2011 version would be fine, and it would be realistic to sell them of at selected retailers. 5000 pairs for 1000$ each or 10.000 pairs for 500$ would satisfy the core fanbase already. This is a retro-futuristic shoe design fom 1988 with the oldfashioned logotype and outdated design elements, so the majority will not be interested anymore. 2015 is over and most of the average BTTF fans don´t care about a shoe for 500$ or more just as a collectors or event shoe. But i have doubts that this will ever gonna happen. Here Nike would have the perfect fabric to produce money for the MJF foundation, but they don´t care.EVEN IF THE AUTO LACING WAS HARD TO PRODUCE THEY COULD OF HAD THOSE 89 PAIRS RELEASED AND ALSO RELEASED MORE PAIRS OF THE 2011 VERSION. NO EXCUSE FOR PRODUCTION THERE AS THEY PRODUCED MANY PAIRS OF THE LEBRON 10 WITH TECH IN IT. I DON'T THINK ANYONE WOULD OF BEEN MAD IF THEY RE-RELEASED THE 2011 VERSION.
We don't know how many mail-in entries there were.So at $6.75 million raised, that means there were 675k total entires (not accounting for mail-ins).
Any math majors wanna give us the probability of winning?
Would this formula work?
xy/z
where:
x = number of your entries
y = number of prizes given out (89 in this case)
z = total number of entries (675000 in this case)
That would've given me a 0.066% chance of winning since I bought 5 entries. Sounds about right .
Which is why I said "not accounting for mail-ins".We don't know how many mail-in entries there were.So at $6.75 million raised, that means there were 675k total entires (not accounting for mail-ins).
Any math majors wanna give us the probability of winning?
Would this formula work?
xy/z
where:
x = number of your entries
y = number of prizes given out (89 in this case)
z = total number of entries (675000 in this case)
That would've given me a 0.066% chance of winning since I bought 5 entries. Sounds about right .
then you have to account that entries were per size.Which is why I said "not accounting for mail-ins".We don't know how many mail-in entries there were.So at $6.75 million raised, that means there were 675k total entires (not accounting for mail-ins).
Any math majors wanna give us the probability of winning?
Would this formula work?
xy/z
where:
x = number of your entries
y = number of prizes given out (89 in this case)
z = total number of entries (675000 in this case)
That would've given me a 0.066% chance of winning since I bought 5 entries. Sounds about right .
675000 hard entries should give us a good enough estimate. I doubt there was a substantial enough amount of mail-ins to impact the numbers too much.
True, didn't think of that. We'll likely never have access to those splits though so the rough estimate with my formula is probably the best we'll get .then you have to account that entries were per size.Which is why I said "not accounting for mail-ins".We don't know how many mail-in entries there were.So at $6.75 million raised, that means there were 675k total entires (not accounting for mail-ins).
Any math majors wanna give us the probability of winning?
Would this formula work?
xy/z
where:
x = number of your entries
y = number of prizes given out (89 in this case)
z = total number of entries (675000 in this case)
That would've given me a 0.066% chance of winning since I bought 5 entries. Sounds about right .
675000 hard entries should give us a good enough estimate. I doubt there was a substantial enough amount of mail-ins to impact the numbers too much.