2 Aug
2023
2 Aug
'23
8:23 p.m.
Classic computers have a value in our capitalist society. Take the Apple-1:
Its value can be in the $100,000s. One is for sale now: ~ $200,000. Next
seems to be the Kenbak-1 valued somewhere around $50,000. Now, I’m not
suggesting money is the epitome for evaluating our hobby but it goes a long
way to explaining its longevity.
Happy computing.
Murray 🙂
Add. I'm unable to get the output from your site but hope to contribute in
some small way.
3 Aug
3 Aug
2:07 a.m.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023, Murray McCullough wrote:
Classic computers have a value in our capitalist
society. Take the Apple-1:
Not necessarily. Something only gets a value if there is a demand or
market. As I repeatedly see old classic systems scrapped because nobody
wants them/has space to store them, there can't be such a high value. For
example, how do you tax a Mincal 523? We have the only one that survived.
I'd say, it's "priceless", you can't attribute a value to it,
because
there's neither a market nor a reference to compare with.
The only reason why the Apple 1 has a monetary value is because it has
become a pure investment object. Everything else is just worthless, except
perhaps the video shift registers ;-)
Christian
4 Aug
4 Aug
9:51 a.m.
That price is interesting. Does that imply the value has gone down after
some skyrocketed close to 1 million? One still has to make the decision of
a owning a house or an apple 1.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023, 1:08 AM Christian Corti via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023, Murray McCullough wrote:
Classic computers have a value in our capitalist
society. Take the
Apple-1:
Not necessarily. Something only gets a value if there is a demand or
market. As I repeatedly see old classic systems scrapped because nobody
wants them/has space to store them, there can't be such a high value. For
example, how do you tax a Mincal 523? We have the only one that survived.
I'd say, it's "priceless", you can't attribute a value to it,
because
there's neither a market nor a reference to compare with.
The only reason why the Apple 1 has a monetary value is because it has
become a pure investment object. Everything else is just worthless, except
perhaps the video shift registers ;-)
Christian
1:18 p.m.
Apple 1 prices have definitely peaked...for now. But you won't find one for
a few funded dollars in your lifetime, if ever. They're now an object of a
rich man's obsession.
Sellam
On Fri, Aug 4, 2023, 6:51 AM John Herron via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
That price is interesting. Does that imply the value
has gone down after
some skyrocketed close to 1 million? One still has to make the decision of
a owning a house or an apple 1.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023, 1:08 AM Christian Corti via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023, Murray McCullough wrote:
except
Classic computers have a value in our capitalist
society. Take the
Apple-1:
Not necessarily. Something only gets a value if there is a demand or
market. As I repeatedly see old classic systems scrapped because nobody
wants them/has space to store them, there can't be such a high value. For
example, how do you tax a Mincal 523? We have the only one that survived.
I'd say, it's "priceless", you can't attribute a value to it,
because
there's neither a market nor a reference to compare with.
The only reason why the Apple 1 has a monetary value is because it has
become a pure investment object. Everything else is just worthless,
perhaps the video shift registers ;-)
Christian
1:37 p.m.
On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 08:51:31AM -0500, John Herron via cctalk wrote:
[...]
That price is interesting. Does that imply the value
has gone down after
some skyrocketed close to 1 million? One still has to make the decision of
a owning a house or an apple 1.
Well, both of them are treated as speculative investments, putting them out
of reach of people who just want the pleasure of using them rather than
looking for the next bagholder. The main difference is that I can just buy
the parts to build my own Apple 1 and nobody's going to stop me, whereas if
I try that with a house the local authority gets quite upset.
5 Aug
5 Aug
8:53 a.m.
Something has to be the most sought-after thing in every collectors'
hobby. The Apple I is not historically significant enough alone to justify
the prices they get, there is a cultural/memorabilia component too. Just
rare enough to form an elite "market". It's an indicator that computer
age
collecting is healthy and robust. The Apple I prices help support all
vintage computer prices, if you're into all that.
I have noticed, from running an indie computer museum for 4 years, that
young people dont know much about 8-bit computers. They're much more
interested in SGIs and NeXT and DOS gamers with a mouse GUI.
Fast forward 50 years. Impossible to know how society will rememeber the
computer age, roughly 1950-2000. A lot of kids today dont lust after a
computer like prior 4 generations, their smartphone and school-issued
chromebooks are just fine. Most people today own computers that are
nothing more than a network interfaces. We in this group are atypical,
archaic by definition. No one collects cloud servers, the things that do
the real work and storage. Will they? Not sure what you call it but we're
not in the "computer age" anymore. My point, the memorabilia factor that
supports Apple I prices will drop off, leaving only the historic value.
Will the historic value support current prices? A market requires demand.
What will be the demand in 2073?
Historians will always value the Apple I and a few others from the computer
age, but the price escalation phase of probably over.
One would still have to pay the future value equivalent of $250,000+ for an
Apple I for as long time. Few if any other computers from our era will
earn anything close to those prices.
Bill
On Fri, Aug 4, 2023, 2:03 PM Peter Corlett via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 08:51:31AM -0500, John Herron
via cctalk wrote:
[...]
That price is interesting. Does that imply the
value has gone down after
some skyrocketed close to 1 million? One still has to make the decision
of
a owning a house or an apple 1.
Well, both of them are treated as speculative investments, putting them out
of reach of people who just want the pleasure of using them rather than
looking for the next bagholder. The main difference is that I can just buy
the parts to build my own Apple 1 and nobody's going to stop me, whereas if
I try that with a house the local authority gets quite upset.
9:41 a.m.
No one collects cloud servers, the things that do
the real work and storage. Will they?
Google's first server is in the Computer History Museum...
On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 8:54 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
Something has to be the most sought-after thing in
every collectors'
hobby. The Apple I is not historically significant enough alone to justify
the prices they get, there is a cultural/memorabilia component too. Just
rare enough to form an elite "market". It's an indicator that computer
age
collecting is healthy and robust. The Apple I prices help support all
vintage computer prices, if you're into all that.
I have noticed, from running an indie computer museum for 4 years, that
young people dont know much about 8-bit computers. They're much more
interested in SGIs and NeXT and DOS gamers with a mouse GUI.
Fast forward 50 years. Impossible to know how society will rememeber the
computer age, roughly 1950-2000. A lot of kids today dont lust after a
computer like prior 4 generations, their smartphone and school-issued
chromebooks are just fine. Most people today own computers that are
nothing more than a network interfaces. We in this group are atypical,
archaic by definition. No one collects cloud servers, the things that do
the real work and storage. Will they? Not sure what you call it but we're
not in the "computer age" anymore. My point, the memorabilia factor that
supports Apple I prices will drop off, leaving only the historic value.
Will the historic value support current prices? A market requires demand.
What will be the demand in 2073?
Historians will always value the Apple I and a few others from the computer
age, but the price escalation phase of probably over.
One would still have to pay the future value equivalent of $250,000+ for an
Apple I for as long time. Few if any other computers from our era will
earn anything close to those prices.
Bill
On Fri, Aug 4, 2023, 2:03 PM Peter Corlett via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
out
--
Michael Thompson
On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 08:51:31AM -0500, John
Herron via cctalk wrote:
[...]
> That price is interesting. Does that imply the value has gone down
after
some
skyrocketed close to 1 million? One still has to make the decision
of
a owning a house or an apple 1.
Well, both of them are treated as speculative investments, putting them
of reach of people who just want the pleasure of
using them rather than
looking for the next bagholder. The main difference is that I can just
buy
the parts to build my own Apple 1 and
nobody's going to stop me, whereas
if
I try that with a house the local authority gets
quite upset.
9:44 a.m.
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote:
Something has to be the most sought-after thing in
every collectors'
hobby. The Apple I is not historically significant enough alone to justify
the prices they get, there is a cultural/memorabilia component too. Just
rare enough to form an elite "market". It's an indicator that computer
age
collecting is healthy and robust. The Apple I prices help support all
vintage computer prices, if you're into all that.
Maybe see also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
Gordon
10:20 a.m.
On Sat, Aug 5, 2023, 9:44 AM Gordon Henderson via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote:
Pretty much nails it.
B
Something has to be the most sought-after thing
in every collectors'
hobby. The Apple I is not historically significant enough alone to
justify
the prices they get, there is a
cultural/memorabilia component too. Just
rare enough to form an elite "market". It's an indicator that computer
age
collecting is healthy and robust. The Apple I
prices help support all
vintage computer prices, if you're into all that.
Maybe see also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
Gordon
24 Aug
24 Aug
8:38 p.m.
On Sat, Aug 5, 2023, 08:54 Bill Degnan via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
The Apple I is not historically significant enough
alone to justify
the prices they get
The first product sold by the first company to hit $1T market cap seems
historically significant to me.
AFAIK the Apple 1 was also the first inexpensive (somewhat subjective)
personal computer to include a composite video text display and a parallel
keyboard interface. Such was possible with the PDP-8 and PDP-11/05, but
they were very expensive, and it wasn't a normal configuration. Also
possible with an S100 system, cheaper than a PDP-anything, but still much
more expensive than Apple 1, and had to be configured out of a lot of
pieces.
There are a lot of "firsts" throughout the history of computing, and I'm
sure that there is disagreement over the significance of many, but I think
I'd have a very hard time justifying myself if I claimed the Apple 1 was
not historically significant.
Eric
8:51 p.m.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 8:38 PM Eric Smith via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
wrote:
On Sat, Aug 5, 2023, 08:54 Bill Degnan via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
wrote:
That's the whole point...viewing history from today's perspective THEN the
Apple I was not historic, it was an awesome SBC like others available at
the time. The Apple II is more "historic" because it was a first appliance
computer.
Basically the Apple I is the first Apple. Historic yes but not off the
charts historic for it's time.
I don't mean to be argumentative. I totally get it why the apple I is
historic and valuable, but the proportion is lost. My only point, the
proportion. The fact that today Apple is worth $1Tn does not make the
Apple 1 more historic.
AFAIK the Apple 1 was also the first inexpensive (somewhat subjective)
The Apple I is not historically significant
enough alone to justify
the prices they get
The first product sold by the first company to hit $1T market cap seems
historically significant to me.
personal computer to include a composite video text
display and a parallel
keyboard interface. Such was possible with the PDP-8 and PDP-11/05, but
they were very expensive, and it wasn't a normal configuration. Also
possible with an S100 system, cheaper than a PDP-anything, but still much
more expensive than Apple 1, and had to be configured out of a lot of
pieces.
There are a lot of "firsts" throughout the history of computing, and I'm
sure that there is disagreement over the significance of many, but I think
I'd have a very hard time justifying myself if I claimed the Apple 1 was
not historically significant.
Eric
I agree the aApple I stands out among SBC computers sold in 1976, but there
is nothing that amazing that could not be found elsewhere in an SBC,
otherwise it would have sold more.
The Jolt was the first 6502, how much is that worth?
Bill
9:29 p.m.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 5:51 PM Bill Degnan via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
I don't mean to be argumentative. I totally get it why the apple I is
historic and valuable, but the proportion is lost. My only point, the
proportion. The fact that today Apple is worth $1Tn does not make the
Apple 1 more historic.
Apple is the only company of that early micro/home-computer era to still
exist today. I think Cromemco still exists in Europe, but in an extremely
vertical market.
So there's that.
I agree the aApple I stands out among SBC computers
sold in 1976, but there
is nothing that amazing that could not be found elsewhere in an SBC,
otherwise it would have sold more.
The Jolt was the first 6502, how much is that worth?
About 3 orders of magnitude less than the Apple 1, because the Jolt was
effectively a deadend, and thus, relatively few people even know of its
existence. Side note: it's one of the few computers I was never able to
get my hands on, even though I became personal friends with its inventor :)
It's obvious that the Apple 1 has the value it does not so much for its
technology but for what it represents, and that's all that matters.
Sellam
25 Aug
25 Aug
9:27 a.m.
On Aug 24, 2023, at 9:29 PM, Sellam Abraham via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
...
It's obvious that the Apple 1 has the value it does not so much for its
technology but for what it represents, and that's all that matters.
This reminds me of the observation that economics is a branch of psychology: the value of
stuff is subjective and personal. (It has to be, because in a trade each person exchanges
an item for a different item valued more highly *by that person*.) So arguing about it
doesn't get you very far.
paul
9:39 a.m.
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 9:27 AM Paul Koning via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Paul,
Just to add my thoughts, not to argue....to me economics is based on supply
and demand. It's not as a science "subjective". Economists can only in
hindsight quantify the impact of subjective factors on supply and demand
after they actually have occurred. From that, one tries to predict the
future taking past subjective impact to determine future economic
outcomes, momemtum, etc.
On Aug 24, 2023, at 9:29 PM, Sellam Abraham via
cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
...
It's obvious that the Apple 1 has the value it does not so much for its
technology but for what it represents, and that's all that matters.
This reminds me of the observation that economics is a branch of
psychology: the value of stuff is subjective and personal. (It has to be,
because in a trade each person exchanges an item for a different item
valued more highly *by that person*.) So arguing about it doesn't get you
very far.
paul
9:42 a.m.
On Aug 25, 2023, at 9:39 AM, Bill Degnan via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 9:27 AM Paul Koning via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Paul,
Just to add my thoughts, not to argue....to me economics is based on supply
and demand. It's not as a science "subjective". Economists can only in
hindsight quantify the impact of subjective factors on supply and demand
after they actually have occurred. From that, one tries to predict the
future taking past subjective impact to determine future economic
outcomes, momemtum, etc.
Yes, but I wasn't talking about that aspect, but about the concept of
"value". Communist pseudo-economics notwithstanding, value is in the eye of the
beholder. As I said, it must be: if I sell you my computer for $100, and you buy it for
that, it means I value $100 more than the computer, and you value the computer more than
$100.
paul
On Aug 24, 2023, at 9:29 PM, Sellam Abraham via
cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
...
It's obvious that the Apple 1 has the value it does not so much for its
technology but for what it represents, and that's all that matters.
This reminds me of the observation that economics is a branch of
psychology: the value of stuff is subjective and personal. (It has to be,
because in a trade each person exchanges an item for a different item
valued more highly *by that person*.) So arguing about it doesn't get you
very far.
paul
9:47 a.m.
Paul,
this is getting OT...but "value" is what something sells for, or the future
value it will be agreed to sell for. Otherwise it's subjective "value" to
the individual meets reality eventually.
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 9:43 AM Paul Koning via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
supply
On Aug 25, 2023, at 9:39 AM, Bill Degnan via
cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 9:27 AM Paul Koning via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
>
>> On Aug 24, 2023, at 9:29 PM, Sellam Abraham via cctalk <
> cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> It's obvious that the Apple 1 has the value it does not so much for its
>> technology but for what it represents, and that's all that matters.
>
> This reminds me of the observation that economics is a branch of
> psychology: the value of stuff is subjective and personal. (It has to
be,
> because in a trade each person exchanges an
item for a different item
> valued more highly *by that person*.) So arguing about it doesn't get
you
very
far.
paul
Paul,
Just to add my thoughts, not to argue....to me economics is based on
and demand. It's not as a science
"subjective". Economists can only in
hindsight quantify the impact of subjective factors on supply and demand
after they actually have occurred. From that, one tries to predict the
future taking past subjective impact to determine future economic
outcomes, momemtum, etc.
Yes, but I wasn't talking about that aspect, but about the concept of
"value". Communist pseudo-economics notwithstanding, value is in the eye
of the beholder. As I said, it must be: if I sell you my computer for
$100, and you buy it for that, it means I value $100 more than the
computer, and you value the computer more than $100.
paul
9:46 a.m.
I feel like people are over-thinking the Apple 1 thing.
Apple made a lot of people rich, and I think the number of rich Apple
people who want to be able to throw parties and say stuff like, "Oh,
yes, that's my Apple I that I paid a million dollars for."
substantially exceeds the number of extant Apple I systems.
I don't think this phenomenon is applicable to very many other products.
G.
12:06 p.m.
On 8/25/2023 9:46 AM, Gavin Scott via cctalk wrote:
I feel like people are over-thinking the Apple 1
thing.
Apple made a lot of people rich, and I think the number of rich Apple
people who want to be able to throw parties and say stuff like, "Oh,
yes, that's my Apple I that I paid a million dollars for."
substantially exceeds the number of extant Apple I systems.
I don't think this phenomenon is applicable to very many other products.
G.
I agree, this is it. Because the Apple 1 is an absolutely awful
computer to use. It's about on par with a Sinclair ZX80. Someone else
mentioned contemporary S-100 (micro) or DEC machines (mini).. at least
those were real machines, still interesting to use today. There's
nothing interesting about using an Apple 1 (IMHO). The Apple II, a
whole different story.
5 Aug
5 Aug
12:47 p.m.
Value is a very much reliant on both desirability and historical significance. I guarantee
most people who own an Apple 1 never use it, and it sits in a cabinet/shelf somewhere.
Transversely, I’m sure there’s very few Amiga 1200’s purely on display, with the vast
majority in collectors hands either tucked in a cupboard or actively used.
The Apple 1 is collectible purely because it was the first product Apple made. There’s
dozens of similar machines from the same time period, vcreated by startups looking to be
the next big thing, that just didn’t make it. Look at SWTPC, look at IMSAI, the COSMAC
ELF. Apple made it to the big time, and they didn’t, so many more people with too much
money would consider the Apple 1 to be a wise investment.
I’d still prefer the IMSAI 8080 or SWTPC 6800 though.
Josh
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Christian Corti via cctalk
Sent: 03 August 2023 07:07
To: Murray McCullough via cctalk
Cc: Christian Corti
Subject: [cctalk] Re: Apple 1
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023, Murray McCullough wrote:
Classic computers have a value in our capitalist
society. Take the Apple-1:
Not necessarily. Something only gets a value if there is a demand or
market. As I repeatedly see old classic systems scrapped because nobody
wants them/has space to store them, there can't be such a high value. For
example, how do you tax a Mincal 523? We have the only one that survived.
I'd say, it's "priceless", you can't attribute a value to it,
because
there's neither a market nor a reference to compare with.
The only reason why the Apple 1 has a monetary value is because it has
become a pure investment object. Everything else is just worthless, except
perhaps the video shift registers ;-)
Christian
335
days inactive
357
days old
19 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
Bill Degnan -
Christian Corti -
Eric Smith -
Gavin Scott -
Gordon Henderson -
John Herron -
Joshua Rice -
js＠cimmeri.com -
Michael Thompson -
Murray McCullough -
Paul Koning -
Peter Corlett -
Sellam Abraham