- 28,092
- 2,603
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
Hell no.
Og's didn't cost more, so why should retros
Og's didn't cost more, so why should retros
Would u pay extra for better retros?????
- Thread in 'Nike Retro' Thread starter Started by spoiledfeet,
- Start date
- 862
- 11
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2004
no i think "they" tax u already ne ways:.
- 454
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2001
I agree, this is my biggest complaint. Nike needs to go back to using big air bubbles and I feel that one day they'll go back to them (hopefully). My favorite Nike's of all time have been ruined because of the small air bubbles (Penny 1's, Pippen 1's, 95's, etc.) The small air bubbles make the shoe feel like your wearing an imitation shoe. And they can't say it's because of the "environment" or whatever that their using smaller air bubbles cause the LeBron VII's have HUGE air bubbles, they can just use that technology and apply that to the retro's. I can't believe a lot of people bought Nike's excuse about the "environment" for using smaller air bubbles.
Good post SpoiledFeet, hopefully one day we'll get our Pippen 1's just like the OG's cause it looks like these 2010 retro Pippen's aren't gonna do the job.
- 11,458
- 15,589
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
QFT
- 794
- 710
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2008
I would yes. Everyone saying quality is the same obviously dont own the og pairs anymore of the retros they have experience with, and decade old memory is fuzzy at best, cause the quality of the retros are at best 70% of the og, specially where padding is concerened. Also, price is no guide you know, cause 1990's dollars (im only guessing on the exact %, so feel free to correct me on this) are worth more than 2010 dollars by about 30% *$%? Its called inflation, look it up. So it only makes sense that the quality is worse for the same exact dollars, cause the same materials are more expensive now and nike only cares about its profit margins. Weve been getting this sort of qaulity for the past decade from the general realeases too, its just only apparent with retros cause we have og's to do comparsions on, and can see how far nike has fallen in its standards. The look of the retros is there, usually, just the comfort factor is way down, and imo is approaching the comfort quality of what we call fakes. Cmmon nike, get your act together, lets not waste another decade putting out garbage!
- 2,985
- 995
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2010
og_Rodney
formerly airodney23
- 2,553
- 339
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2004
I doubt that'll ever happen. They use big cushions on LeBron's because those are supposed to be used for actual basketball. Retro's are considered a lifestyle product, meaning they're not meant for athletic activity. If the retro's performed on the same level as Nike's current line of basketball/running products, their sales would be cut. It's like they're competing with themselves: Nike Basketball vs. Nike Lifestyle.
And I probably wouldn't pay more for "better quality". One, I'm just cheap as hell. Two, what would be the reference point for "good quality"? Shoes from the '90s? Nike isn't gonna spend extra money to please a small subset of their profits. As long as Nikes sell out, the quality will stay the same.
- 1,642
- 73
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2010
If you wanna pay more for retros then buy the bin23's....
- 1,124
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
NO. They should be putting out better quality stuff from the get go. They make MONEY as it is.
HINT: The reason their stuff 'slacks' is because we still buy it. If we didn't cop stuff that was wack, they'd reconsider their ways.
HINT: The reason their stuff 'slacks' is because we still buy it. If we didn't cop stuff that was wack, they'd reconsider their ways.
- 454
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2001
If that's Nike's way of thinking then they need to get their head's out their &%$#. They put out a retro BASKETBALL shoe and we're not supposed to use them for "athletic activity"? That would be absolutely dumb to think that way. And yes they can give us bigger air bubbles they just want to cut cost and corners like many on here have mentioned.
- 1,074
- 305
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2010
The revolt has begun, slightly.
I make it a point to check Eastbay.com and look at the available sizes for stuff like the motorsport 6 rings,
25th anniversary 3's/4's and the blk/white 6's.
I'm happy to see everyday that they have close to FSR's of those particular shoes.
The problem comes when the OG colorways release, and we go back to square one.
The only way real change will come, is when a major shoe release fails.
Sadly, I don't see it happening (switches tabs to eBay, looks for older retros)
I make it a point to check Eastbay.com and look at the available sizes for stuff like the motorsport 6 rings,
25th anniversary 3's/4's and the blk/white 6's.
I'm happy to see everyday that they have close to FSR's of those particular shoes.
The problem comes when the OG colorways release, and we go back to square one.
The only way real change will come, is when a major shoe release fails.
Sadly, I don't see it happening (switches tabs to eBay, looks for older retros)
- 511
- 60
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
As most have said, there is absolutely no logical reason to pay more than what Nikes/Air Jordans already cost for "improved" quality, as the price hikes should be a result of inflation for original quality materials. As it stands now, the price hikes for LOWER grade materials and craftsmanship are out of sheer greed. Paying any more than we already are for "better quality" is as irrational as people camping out to buy the garbage quality stuff we're being offered right now, which keeps perpetuating Nike's/JB's nasty habits. Let's look at this issue deeper, and dispel some myths.
"Retro quality is as good/not that far off from the quality of originals"
If you grew up OWNING the originals (not hearing stories about them, or staring at other people's originals), or even if you've had some of the earlier retros, you know nothing could be further from the truth. When I was obsessed with Nikes in the late '80s/early '90s, they were considered the cream of the crop. We knew that's not WHY they were so expensive (we were paying for Bo Jackson's, MJ's, etc contracts), but it was somewhat easier to swallow because at least you knew what you were getting was top quality as far as athletic shoes go (granted, the prices put them out of the range of many young fanatics). The styles (love them, or hate them) were out of the ordinary, the colors were wild, the materials were sturdy and higher end, the technology in them was always ahead of the game, etc.
Much to my pleasure, the initial retros were pretty close to the real thing, and it was a thrill to see them again in all their glory. But around '05/'06, Nike/JB discovered that they could keep chipping away at the craftsmanship/fit and finish, the quality of the materials, the cut of the shoes, etc, and people would STILL buy them based on hype and nostalgia. They started jacking the prices the last couple years on top of the poorer quality, and STILL people were standing in line on release day to get many of the retros. And so, the demise of the integrity of Nike/JB was well under way.
"Of COURSE the retros are more expensive. It's called INFLATION, DUH!!"
Whoa, there, bucko. Let's analyze this a bit more. The cost to create any consumer goods involves more than just materials. First, you have to pay employees to R&D what you're about to make, and then to design that product. Then, initial molds have to be made, and an initial batch of the product has to be created to test the product. Then, you have to pay people to test the product and tweak it to perform better. These last two procedures may have to be done many times over till the manufacturer is satisfied. Once you have a finished product you're confident in, the mass production run begins. This is where you factor in the cost of materials and production (on top of the initial cost to make the pre-production test batches).
There in lies the problem when it comes to using the inflation excuse for retro shoes. Considering there were no employees to pay to come up with the designs, the R&D was already done 1 or 2 DECADES ago, test batches are reduced to nothing more than making sure the production is living up to whatever quality standards you're shooting for, and that developing the molds comes down to retrieving readily available preexisting blueprints, the cost for recreating the shoes is HALF, OR LESS of what it cost to originally create them. You literally have brought it down to the cost of materials and production. Even WITH inflation, if anything, they should cost a tad UNDER what they cost originally, especially given the corner cutting taking place since about '05/'06. To charge what they're charging for the current grade of retros is sheer greed, and nothing else.
"It is what it is. Nike/JB has us by the balls, and we can't do anything about it."
It's not that you CAN'T do anything about it. It's that you WON'T do anything about it. Americans don't have the self control to stick to their principals no matter what, and fight to see a change. Look at what happened with the Retro Air Jordan XII Rising Suns. For very different political reasons, the Chinese and Japanese were both appalled by the "Rising Sun" logo on the insoles. People from both respective nations rallied together and protested Nike, threatened boycotts, etc. When all was said and done, the "Rising Sun" insoles were removed not only for the Asian market, but internationally. Can you imagine Americans ever rallying together for something they believed in like that? No. Instead, we b*tch and complain about how Nike/JB is raping us..........WHILE we VOLUNTARILY pull our pants down, and bend over.
Of COURSE Nike/JB has you by the balls if you're going to voluntarily put your balls in their hands. You DO have a choice, you know. No one is forcing you to buy the inferior quality products they're putting out. If everyone who is disgusted with the retros would just stop buying the damn things, instead of complaining how bad they suck AS they're forking over the money for them after waiting in line all morning before the stores open, perhaps Nike/JB would have to think twice about their game plan. The only power a retailer can have over consumers is that which the consumers give them.
Of course, this is pointless to discuss in the US since Americans are so gullible, impressionable and easily persuaded by hype, media and pop culture.
"Retro quality is as good/not that far off from the quality of originals"
If you grew up OWNING the originals (not hearing stories about them, or staring at other people's originals), or even if you've had some of the earlier retros, you know nothing could be further from the truth. When I was obsessed with Nikes in the late '80s/early '90s, they were considered the cream of the crop. We knew that's not WHY they were so expensive (we were paying for Bo Jackson's, MJ's, etc contracts), but it was somewhat easier to swallow because at least you knew what you were getting was top quality as far as athletic shoes go (granted, the prices put them out of the range of many young fanatics). The styles (love them, or hate them) were out of the ordinary, the colors were wild, the materials were sturdy and higher end, the technology in them was always ahead of the game, etc.
Much to my pleasure, the initial retros were pretty close to the real thing, and it was a thrill to see them again in all their glory. But around '05/'06, Nike/JB discovered that they could keep chipping away at the craftsmanship/fit and finish, the quality of the materials, the cut of the shoes, etc, and people would STILL buy them based on hype and nostalgia. They started jacking the prices the last couple years on top of the poorer quality, and STILL people were standing in line on release day to get many of the retros. And so, the demise of the integrity of Nike/JB was well under way.
"Of COURSE the retros are more expensive. It's called INFLATION, DUH!!"
Whoa, there, bucko. Let's analyze this a bit more. The cost to create any consumer goods involves more than just materials. First, you have to pay employees to R&D what you're about to make, and then to design that product. Then, initial molds have to be made, and an initial batch of the product has to be created to test the product. Then, you have to pay people to test the product and tweak it to perform better. These last two procedures may have to be done many times over till the manufacturer is satisfied. Once you have a finished product you're confident in, the mass production run begins. This is where you factor in the cost of materials and production (on top of the initial cost to make the pre-production test batches).
There in lies the problem when it comes to using the inflation excuse for retro shoes. Considering there were no employees to pay to come up with the designs, the R&D was already done 1 or 2 DECADES ago, test batches are reduced to nothing more than making sure the production is living up to whatever quality standards you're shooting for, and that developing the molds comes down to retrieving readily available preexisting blueprints, the cost for recreating the shoes is HALF, OR LESS of what it cost to originally create them. You literally have brought it down to the cost of materials and production. Even WITH inflation, if anything, they should cost a tad UNDER what they cost originally, especially given the corner cutting taking place since about '05/'06. To charge what they're charging for the current grade of retros is sheer greed, and nothing else.
"It is what it is. Nike/JB has us by the balls, and we can't do anything about it."
It's not that you CAN'T do anything about it. It's that you WON'T do anything about it. Americans don't have the self control to stick to their principals no matter what, and fight to see a change. Look at what happened with the Retro Air Jordan XII Rising Suns. For very different political reasons, the Chinese and Japanese were both appalled by the "Rising Sun" logo on the insoles. People from both respective nations rallied together and protested Nike, threatened boycotts, etc. When all was said and done, the "Rising Sun" insoles were removed not only for the Asian market, but internationally. Can you imagine Americans ever rallying together for something they believed in like that? No. Instead, we b*tch and complain about how Nike/JB is raping us..........WHILE we VOLUNTARILY pull our pants down, and bend over.
Of COURSE Nike/JB has you by the balls if you're going to voluntarily put your balls in their hands. You DO have a choice, you know. No one is forcing you to buy the inferior quality products they're putting out. If everyone who is disgusted with the retros would just stop buying the damn things, instead of complaining how bad they suck AS they're forking over the money for them after waiting in line all morning before the stores open, perhaps Nike/JB would have to think twice about their game plan. The only power a retailer can have over consumers is that which the consumers give them.
Of course, this is pointless to discuss in the US since Americans are so gullible, impressionable and easily persuaded by hype, media and pop culture.
- 333
- 11
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
i would wait to catch it on sale.
- 454
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2001
- 1,656
- 20
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2006
Absolutely not!
Any sneaker nike makes should have good quality, especially when the original version did, what the #$% are we paying for then?
On the other hand, I gladly shell out more for vintage pairs. But that's a different story. Supply n demand.
Any sneaker nike makes should have good quality, especially when the original version did, what the #$% are we paying for then?
On the other hand, I gladly shell out more for vintage pairs. But that's a different story. Supply n demand.
- 7,072
- 11
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- 3,018
- 1,251
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005