Live data from Hacker News

Ways to save Apple (1997)

archive.wired.com

51–60 of 82 posts

Re: Ways to save Apple (1997)

#51

If you'd bought $10,000 of AAPL stock when this article was published (June 1997), it would be worth about $523,000 today, excluding dividends.

If I told you to buy $10,000 of Blackberry stock today, would you do it? Buying AAPL in 1997 is as crazy as buying Blackberry today. The difference is Steve Jobs, but some people thought he was nuts too back in 1997.

Also interestingly, how much money you need to have to be able to invest 10K into a single risky investment. Realistically you would either have to be irresponsible or be quite comfortable already.

500K today is a very nice sum, but it is only life changing if you are in the category that would not have had the 10K to invest in the first place.

Re: Ways to save Apple (1997)

#52
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's worse than that. You don't know the right answer, nobody else knows the right answer, and the only way get by is to guess and hope you get lucky. Apple got lucky. They built the iPod, which in hindsight, was a trans-formative product, but at the time it wasn't so obvious.

It sounds like you think they rolled a die for every design decision that went into creating the iPod and it happened to turn out well. I would agree that there are many factors outside your control and subject to luck for a company in a situation like that, but how you choose to design and market your products aren't among them. Apple back then wasn't Samsung, they didn't just make one of everything, in as many diff…

I think they were just betting the whole company. If you're betting the whole company on a single revolutionary product, you better make that product as awesome as you can possibly manage.

I imagine with each design decision they asked just two questions "will it make the product more awesome" and "can we afford it".

I wonder if stock holders knew Apple was risking that much on a project that wasn't even a computer.

Re: Ways to save Apple (1997)

#53

If you'd bought $10,000 of AAPL stock when this article was published (June 1997), it would be worth about $523,000 today, excluding dividends.

Didn't it multiply by more like 210x since then? So your 10k should be worth $2,100,000.

https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:AAPL

Re: Ways to save Apple (1997)

#54

If you'd bought $10,000 of AAPL stock when this article was published (June 1997), it would be worth about $523,000 today, excluding dividends.

If I told you to buy $10,000 of Blackberry stock today, would you do it? Buying AAPL in 1997 is as crazy as buying Blackberry today. The difference is Steve Jobs, but some people thought he was nuts too back in 1997.

Didn't Steve jobs sell 1.5 million shares in 1997? It caused a 12 year low in the company's stock price..

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Steve-Jobs-Confirms-A...

Re: Ways to save Apple (1997)

#55
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in any meaningful sense. Hardly any big tech companies manufacture hardware in the US any more. Hardware is Apple's single distinguishing feature as a business, and theres way more to it than which company happens to assemble the components together.

But its hardware production, not design... So, it was accurate.

I think what Apple does is a bit different to outsourcing hardware production. They actually finance the initial investment in the manufacturing facilities in order to secure exclusive and long term contracts.

It seems to be a cost effective in that they get the benefits of owning the hardware production while the technology is still new.

Re: Ways to save Apple (1997)

#56
post #35
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$3,400 on IIsi in 1991... one of the first 'affordable' color Macs. That was an amazing machine and I still remember the magic.

$2500 on an Apple //e in 1983. Monochrome screen, 1 floppy drive. No printer, no modem, no 80 column card.

$2699 on a 1GHz G4 Powerbook in 2003. Didn't even have a DVD recordable, had to shell out another $300 for a firewire one and another $300 for 256MB more memory.

Re: Ways to save Apple (1997)

#57
post #33

There are some very interesting things here... Some jewels that proved to be very accurate, and some that were way off... But i think that the positive ones are winning... #1 - Foxconn. #2 - OSX for computers, iOS -> iPhone, iPad, AppleTv #3 - Debatable, but one could argue that Apple Store did this at first #4 - Steve Jobs listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-dollar_salary #5 - iPhone #, iPad #, but not relate…

#5 - I'm young so I think it's interesting (and super informative) that people believed in a naming convention that immediately tells you what hardware you're getting. The rise of frilly landing pages and just-look-at-the-computer-case-not-the-numbers marketing makes it frustrating for hardware-oriented shoppers like me to find what I want efficiently (basically I think #14's "pretty box" solution gained a little too much traction in the marketing aspect)

Re: Ways to save Apple (1997)

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's worse than that. You don't know the right answer, nobody else knows the right answer, and the only way get by is to guess and hope you get lucky. Apple got lucky. They built the iPod, which in hindsight, was a trans-formative product, but at the time it wasn't so obvious.

This is pretty uncharitable to Jobs. If you look at Apple's trajectory over the last 15 years, you can see the vision was consistently outlined from the very beginning—the Digital Hub strategy ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9046oXrm7f8 ). You can draw a straight line through iPod -> iTunes Store -> iPhone -> App Store -> iPad -> Apple Watch. Even though the vision was a little blurry with regards to how powerful m…

> If you look at Apple's trajectory over the last 15 years, you can see the vision was consistently outlined from the very beginning—the Digital Hub strategy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9046oXrm7f8).

That's not really the case though. As Jobs outlined it in that video, the Digital Hub strategy was to sell Macintoshes by positioning them as something you could dock your consumer-electronics gadgets, mostly from third parties, into. It was a plan to sell hubs, not spokes. This strategy had limited viability for Apple, because a typical consumer wasn't likely to think "I've just bought this $500 camcorder, so now I need to spend twice that or more on a Mac in order to offload and edit the video". If they were going to use any computer as the digital hub for their camcorder, it was probably going to be their Windows PC. That's probably why iTunes for Windows was such a difficult and long-drawn-out decision for Jobs: because it was a decision to mostly abandon the Digital Hub approach in favour of selling more of the spokes. Then Apple's slow and initially reluctant embrace of the "post-PC era" with over-the-air iDevice updates and cloud storage to partly displace iTunes means that it's increasingly taking nearly the opposite of Jobs' 2001 stance: "We're clearly migrating away from the PC as the centrepiece" and "We don't think of it in terms of the PC business anymore" are things that Tim Cook could say today without really startling anyone.

Re: Ways to save Apple (1997)

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's worse than that. You don't know the right answer, nobody else knows the right answer, and the only way get by is to guess and hope you get lucky. Apple got lucky. They built the iPod, which in hindsight, was a trans-formative product, but at the time it wasn't so obvious.

At the time it was a heavy music player with an annoying interface that only worked for mac users and was useless forever if you dropped it and the hard drive broke. They fixed all those problems later versions, but the initial device was underwhelming to a lot of people.

I had an early one, and loved it. It's been slowly forgotten about over time, but the scroll wheel interface was an amazing innovation. Even years later I'd see people with MP3 players with up and down buttons struggle to scroll through a large list, whereas the scroll wheel made it comfortable, fast, and easy to control.
Post reply on HN