Adidas’ 3D-printed shoes are launching globally on May 2nd

The Verge - Apr 25th, 2025

Adidas is expanding the availability of its 3D-printed Climacool shoes globally, starting May 2, at a price of $140. These innovative slip-ons, characterized by their breathable lattice structure, were initially released in limited quantities last year to users of Adidas' Confirmed platform. Now, they will be accessible through select Adidas store locations in major US cities, although international in-store availability is yet to be announced. This global launch marks a significant step in Adidas' ongoing exploration of 3D-printing technology in footwear production.

The Climacool shoes are distinct in that they are entirely manufactured through additive manufacturing, setting them apart from previous models like Futurecraft 4D, which had only partially utilized 3D printing. This approach allows for the creation of shoes with unique properties, such as lightweight breathability and seamless fit. The expansion of Climacool's availability underscores a broader industry trend, with competitors like Nike and New Balance also experimenting with 3D printing. However, Adidas' global rollout represents a notable advancement in making this technology more accessible to consumers, potentially paving the way for further innovation and customization in the footwear market.

3 D Printing Adidas Climacool Footwear Technology Global Product Launch

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a mostly accurate and timely overview of Adidas' upcoming global launch of the 3D-printed Climacool shoes. It effectively highlights the product's features and the technological innovation involved, making it relevant to consumers interested in footwear and technology. However, the lack of detailed sourcing and transparency about the 3D printing process detracts from the story's credibility. While the article is clear and engaging, it could benefit from a more balanced perspective, including potential criticisms or broader implications of 3D printing in the industry. Overall, the story is informative and well-timed but has room for improvement in sourcing, transparency, and balance.

Accuracy

The article provides a detailed account of Adidas' new Climacool shoes, highlighting their global launch, price, and unique 3D printing technology. The story accurately mentions the launch date (May 2) and price ($140), which are consistent with external sources. It also correctly describes the availability through Adidas' Confirmed platform and select stores in major U.S. cities. However, the article lacks explicit confirmation of international in-store availability, which is an area needing further verification. The description of the 3D printing process is somewhat vague, lacking specific details about the technology used, which could lead to potential inaccuracies. Overall, the article is mostly accurate, but some claims need more precise verification.

Balance

The article primarily focuses on Adidas and its technological advancements in shoe manufacturing, particularly the Climacool model. While it mentions competitors like Nike and New Balance, the coverage is minimal, potentially leading to an imbalance in perspective. The story does not explore potential downsides or criticisms of 3D-printed shoes, such as environmental impacts or durability concerns, which could provide a more balanced view. Additionally, the article does not feature any consumer or expert opinions, which could have offered a broader range of perspectives on the topic.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow of information. It effectively outlines the key features of the Climacool shoes, their launch details, and the 3D printing technology involved. The language is straightforward and accessible, making it easy for readers to understand the main points. However, the piece could benefit from more detailed explanations of technical terms, such as 'additive manufacturing' and 'Continuous Liquid Interface Production,' to enhance reader comprehension. Overall, the article is clear and concise, but a bit more technical clarity would improve its accessibility.

Source quality

The article does not cite any specific sources or experts, relying instead on general statements about Adidas' technology and market strategy. This lack of attribution reduces the story's credibility and makes it harder to assess the reliability of the information presented. While the article is likely based on press releases or official statements from Adidas, the absence of direct quotes or references to industry experts diminishes its authority. Including a variety of credible sources would enhance the story's reliability and provide a more comprehensive view of the topic.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in several areas, particularly regarding the methodology and sources of information. It does not disclose how the information was obtained or whether there are any conflicts of interest. The piece would benefit from greater transparency about the specific 3D printing technologies used and the potential limitations or challenges associated with them. Additionally, the article does not clarify whether it is based on independent research or if it relies solely on company-provided information, which could impact the impartiality of the coverage.