[dadarepublic]

Sneakerhead here. This is tangental but related. The core of Under Armor's problem is design. The market is simply not excited by UA's offerings. This cascades throughout their ecosystem - this app included.

UA sells shoes, no question. Just not to sneakerheads.

Think of it this way, I remember as web engineer, when engineers were installing Chrome on family members computers to get them off the built-in browser. Chrome was far better (at the time) and the core audience - engineers - helped Chrome ascend to the status as most widely used browser (https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share).

Nike, Adidas, and recently New Balance have just consistently produced more exiting designs beyond the initial hype machine.

A simple look at the StockX resale market reflects that.

I'm not surprised this app failed. UA is a big brand and, no doubt this will not kill them. But they aren't an 'exiting' brand. Focus on the core product - that marketing that the core product design provides effects all their efforts - this app included.

[gknoy]

I hope you'll forgive my ignorance, but what do you (as a "sneakerhead") look for in shoe design? Is this a matter of visual aethetics, or of performance/support metrics? I buy shoes relatively rarely, and usually end up getting something similar to what I had before, so I feel like I have no idea what "good design" even means in a shoe, any more than I would consider design of a screwdriver.

Obviously, such good design exists -- I like one cordless drill better than the other, for example -- but often time good design is not immediately obvious. What are the hallmarks of good shoe design that you look for? What excites you about one shoe vs another, and that prompts you to buy specific shoes rather than whatever happens to fit at $store?

[dadarepublic]

A very broad answer to your query... sneakerheads run the gamut in terms of what they might look for or why they might want a shoe. A sneakerhead may want to have a shoe in their collection but never rock (wear) them, another shoe might be a grail that is worn infrequently or for special occasions, and yet another shoe might become a "beater" - a shoe you love to wear and wear it til it's in tatters.

In my collection I have all three types. Some sneakerheads are into collecting only the most valuable shoes in terms of reselling (this is not me).

Even for my utilitarian shoes/boots I obsess over details such as construction, comfort, and craft/style. It's why I'm a fan of some limited Redwing & Nick's Handmade boots and not something you can just pick up at your local big box store.

What I consider a great shoe design, another sneakerhead might think is trash. Some sneakerheads only collect specific types/brands. For me it's usually a combination of style/design, quality of materials, and comfort. If a shoe isn't comfortable I won't wear it and if it's valuable in the aftermarket I'll probably sell it for profit at some point - unless it's a pure work of art in which case I'll keep it indefinitely. Yes there are shoes like that (for me).

But there are trends - shoes that a great many people find "exciting" or good design for various reasons. As I mentioned in my original comment, there are reselling marketplaces such as StockX (stockx.com) that track trends and display the value sneakers - the value can be dictated by a combination of factors such as design/style, materials and rarity with a peppering of comfort & utility.

I totally get that some people just want a shoe to be a shoe and don't care much about style/design. I just happen not to be one of those people.

[awad]

It's not necessarily one or the other but definitely skews towards the aesthetics/fashion element. That said, the best designed sneakers often rank highly on both of those dimensions. Another poster mentioned Nike's rise in running shoes. They're highly functional, often the best in the game, but also designed with enough attention to aesthetics to be seen on the foot of many executives in their day to day lives. That's good design.

To the gp's point, the single pair of UA sneakers I own are highly functional and sport-specific that only come out at the gym...but picking them out of a crowd of UA's lineup is difficult.

[dole]

To sneakerheads, fashion and aesthestics value far more than function and performance. Sneakerheads being a [large] subset of the current streetwear trend, exclusivity is another major factor for inflated prices in streetwear and sneakers.

Timed and location specific drops of exclusive, limited edition, special colorway variants of shoes, clothes and all other types of popular gear raises value. As mentioned, StockX majorly drives the market, and the exclusivity leads the savvy (or obsessed) consumer to seek advantages over others: bots, bulk buying, captcha solving, DDoSing, proxies, and the usual exploits are employed. The prices and value may be ridiculous but obviously, it's worth it to someone and there's lots of money to be made.

[dadarepublic]

> To the gp's point, the single pair of UA sneakers I own are highly functional and sport-specific that only come out at the gym...but picking them out of a crowd of UA's lineup is difficult.

A very good summary. UA just doesn't have whatever it is that influencers, fashionistas, artists, and designers are looking for - which is mostly style/design/hype attached to good materials, exclusivity and comfort.

It's how great design translates into good brand marketing (read: hype) - UA isn't it.