If You Bought Apple Stock Instead of Products | Hacker News Reader

If You Bought Apple Stock Instead of Products

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

76 pointsyagibear33 comments

In March of 2007 I bought 25 shares of AAPL for $2,299.50. It's now worth $8,666.75

In June of 2007 I bought a MacBook Pro for $1,999 to run my startup off of. (The chart says that if I had bought stock instead, it'd be worth $4,413.)

The ROI on the MacBook Pro has been the better investment in my opinion.

Yes, this is the point. It's not like we're just pouring the money down the drain. Technology is (often) an investment.

Most of the HNers don't, but a lot of folks do. They buy certain technology because it's cool or everyone else is doing it, even though they would be the same off with something half the price.

I will confess that I do this too :-)

Well, no, because buying any other laptop would have probably served you just as well. Any other stock would not have.

Any other stock? Have you seen Mongolian Stock Exchange lately? http://cl.ly/3v34171i2O2g1x0C3B3k (source: http://www.mse.mn/)

I meant just any other stock.

Another day, another imaginary profit using 20/20 hindsight. Yes, stock trading is easy using a time machine. Do you have a time machine? I didn't think so. Next!

Time Machine™ comes with every Mac!

If you bought the winning lottery ticket instead of gum at that 711... you'd have made a million.

If (in early 2000) You Had Bought Nokia Stock Instead Of A Nokia Phone...

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:NOK

...you could today afford two styrofoam cups and a piece of string.

An off-hand observation: Nokia's late-90's rise looks just as spectacular as Apple's in the 00's.

I think the differnece here is the P/E multiple apple is getting. They have more E (Earnings) to justify their P (stock Price).

Skip the article and go straight to the numbers: http://www.kyleconroy.com/apple-stock.php

Of course, the flaw here is that if you take this to it's logical extreme, a world in which everybody instead spent money on Apple stock instead of buying Apple products, then Apple's revenue over that period would have become zero, and then almost inevitably the stock would become zero too.

But yeah.

Based on this table, it looks like if you buy the equivalent amount of stock every time you buy a new Apple production, you'll get a free upgrade within 2-3 years?

My current machine is:

Apple MacBook Pro "Core 2 Duo" 2.8 15" (SD) 2009-06-08 $2299 $4,328

and it's about time to upgrade.

And I could really use an iPhone 4 upgrade from my 3GS:

Apple iPhone 3GS 16, 32 GB 2009-06-08 $199 $375

The Mac Mini sitting under my TV could more than replace my whole entertainment center:

Apple Mac mini G4/1.42 2005-01-11 $599 $5,026

Also, you can sell your apple products for close to 50% of their value.

How were companies like APPL, GOOG, and MSFT perceived in the time before their stocks took off?

Was it obvious to people in the industry that these companies would be successful? Was it seen more of a hit or miss? Were people betting against their success?

Amongst the people I knew (young people with no money), MSFT was seen as a sure thing from about 1990 until 2000. I dissuaded them by explaining that Linux was just around the corner to mess up that sure thing...

It's a wonder I was even able to tie my shoes.

It used to be a cliché in tech journalism that every Apple story described them as "beleaguered". They were regarded as circling the drain for years, and the stock returns here were a lot less enticing back when they were trying to survive in the computer industry.

Apple was a complete and total mess back in 1997. Let me count the ways.

- Windows 95 eradicated most of their "ease-of-use" advantage, which destroyed their profit margins

- They had a string of serious hardware and software quality problems, leading people to wonder if

- Their computers were seriously overpriced. (Not mildly expensive like today, but like half the specs for 150% of the price.)

- Their cloning strategy had totally flopped and eradicated their margins even further.

- The Newton, which was pitched as a "save the company" thing, had flopped

- Apple was trying to sell itself to anyone interested, and nobody would buy

- The Wall Street Journal thought there were serious accounting shenanigans going on

- And unlike today, they had no consumer electronic products to fall back on.

The Mac business was so fucked, it took them about 10 years before they really "fixed" it. And I don't think anyone at the time really could have predicted that Apple would become a consumer electronics juggernaut.

Still their stock was considered a steal at $15 a share or whatever, and it's depressing to think you missed an opportunity of a lifetime.

It was a steal at ~89 in January of 2009 as well.

I was very dismissive of GOOG. Floating an IT company at this time when their only product is a search engine that will be replaced by the first better engine to come along? Stay away from that!

In retrospect I should have gone into as much debt as possible and put all that money into Google shares, but figuring out how to make money when you have access to time travel is pretty easy :-)

Sure, if I bought stock instead of Apple products I'd be loaded.. but would I understand why?

Annoyingly, over the years I have told myself that I should be buying AAPL instead of the products. Never took my own advice.

Although it'd be more interesting to see the differential between AAPL and the SP500 in the same time (because you probably actually did buy that via a 401k or whatever)

I wonder if this would work as an investment strategy:

A month after I buy a product, if I still love what I bought, buy the same amount in stock of that company (or a fixed multiple/divisor of the amount spent).

But then I'd be sitting at an empty desk in silence!

Well in 2007 I bought a mac and ended up developing for my iPhone and I've made much more than 6x (about the going rate for 2007 items).

If we all would've bought Apple stock instead of their products the stock would've gone nowhere!

2003 seems to be the best year for those missing out on 1997:

http://goo.gl/PqYeQ (best bang for buck version - google sheets).

of course, if everyone followed the above advice the stock would not have gone up (at each snapshot in time) since the reduction in purchased products and profits would not have moved the stock. That is, unless you subscribe to the tragedy of the commons, and let the commons write their own tragedy as you raked in the stock uptick / gains. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

I would have made $200. I'll stick with the iPod.

This kind is logic might work with coca cola stock but it certainly doesn't with apple. How do you measure the roi of a Mac Pro?

Yeah, I built myself a (non-mac) computer in 2003 for about $1,000, and am using it as I write this. I wouldn't have set aside that money to buy Apple stock, and I have no idea the stock value of the various component vendors (the intel components were a few hundred at most).

If you're going to buy a computer anyway, you'd be measuring the Apple anyway, not the entire product cost. That is, if an equivalent Apple machine cost $1,500, then the money I could have spent on Apple stock by building my own is $500, not $1,500.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com