There was a time when this (computer companies going bust) was a regular occurence. Heck, I used an Amiga 1200 as my primary computer until the late 90s/Early 2

There was a time when this (computer companies going bust) was a regular occurence. Heck, I used an Amiga 1200 as my primary computer until the late 90s/Early 2000s. I think this concept of investment is perhaps an American or Silicon Valley-specific thing. To me, the concept of investment implies that you should get a return. If you're not getting a financial return, it's not an investment, it's a purchase. You can get other types of return from a purchase, but you can't necessarily exchange those types of return directly for goods and services. The idea of an investment in a brand is something I find horrific. To me it sounds like a nice way of saying that a brand has you by the balls and can extract money from you as and when they want knowing they don't have to try. If people 'invest in coca cola' it means they won't buy pepsi or sprite to me. It means that they no longer even consider what's best for them, instead slavishly sticking to a brand that they self justify by claiming a false return. Apple has my purchasing balls in a vice as far as the iPhone is concerned, it'd take me a lot to move to Android as I've spent a small fortune over the years on various apps. That isn't an investment, that's being owned. If I was able to take the apps I've bought on iPhone and run them (or reacquire them) on Android, they wouldn't have that hold over me. Thankfully I have an iPad so switching phones is feasible for me (although I'd have to buy a whole new set of apps for the things I use on my current phone), but switching phones and tablets means I no longer get any value from the purchases I've made and that's where they have my balls in a vice. From now on, when someone says they're invested in a brand, I think I'm going to use the term 'balls in a vice'. Chuck Palahniuk wrote it best in Fight Club: "The things you own end up owning you".