4 ms·
At that time there weren't much companies doing what Apple was doing, it was an almost new market but now you have thousands of online stores and you need the m
by ghostDancer 10y ago
At that time there weren't much companies doing what Apple was doing, it was an almost new market but now you have thousands of online stores and you need the money to get seen and noticed more than for the shop itself.
- mysterypie 10y agoYou're making these two points: (#1) Apple was doing something distinctive. (#2) Nasty Gal is not doing something distinctive and needs millions of dollars just to be noticed. On that basis alone, something like #1 is a much better investment than something like #2.
- ghostDancer 10y agoAgree. But how many distinctive things are going down or not even being noticed. It's too difficult to find one that can work and probably investors are more reluctant to put the money in something new , cause now you need quite a lot of money for anything. I understand your point but most money doesn't go to innovation but to proven markets. They're afraid of what they don't know. Look how hard is the hardware market.
- brainflake 10y agoYou're right that they're 2 very different investments, but I don't think you can say unequivocally that #1 is better than #2. It all depends on desired returns, risk, etc. Let's face it, if you had given money to Apple in 1976 there was a good chance you were never seeing that money again.
- nradov 10y agoWhen Apple was founded there were many other companies selling microcomputers. Today, there are thousands of online stores yet some still manage to get seen and noticed through word-of-mouth and viral marketing which costs very little.