April 25, 2024

Apple-1 Computers Jump in Value at Auctions

“Of course,” Mr. Spicer added, “I could have paid off my mortgage now with what it would be worth.”

Perhaps so. Last November, an Apple-1, also commonly known as the Apple I, sold for $640,000 at an auction in Germany. That sale surpassed the previous record of $374,500 set only five months earlier at Sotheby’s in New York.

The astronomical run-up in the price of the original Apple-1 machines — made in 1976 and priced at $666.66 (about $2,700 in current dollars) — is a story of the economics of scarcity and techno-fetishism, magnified by the mystique surrounding Apple and its founders, as the company has become one of the largest, most profitable corporations in the world.

The next test of the Apple-1 market comes on Saturday, at the same auction house in Cologne, Germany, where the record sale took place last November.

Even the auctioneer, Uwe Breker, expressed some surprise at the price reached last fall. For this week’s auction, the reserve price — the minimum sale price — is $116,000, and Mr. Breker conservatively estimated the likely range from $260,000 to $400,000. “But we will see,” he said.

The auction market for the vintage machines, experts say, is thin and uncertain. For example, a nonworking Apple-1 failed to attract its reserve price of just over $75,000 at an auction last year in London. The record-setting auctions last year were of working originals, as is the Apple-1 going under the gavel on Saturday.

The sky-high prices suggest irrational exuberance. But technology historians say there is a rational appeal to possessing an Apple-1. “It is Apple’s creation story, the physical artifact that traces this incredible success to its origins,” said Mr. Spicer, a senior curator at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, Calif.

The Apple-1, Mr. Spicer added, was instrumental in the early transition in personal computing from its hobbyist roots to becoming a huge commercial business. Others were there too, notably the MITS Altair, which was introduced before the Apple-1, and was the first personal computer that Microsoft’s founders, Bill Gates and Paul Allen, wrote software for.

But Apple proved to be the enduring computer maker. And its founders embodied the hobbyist-commercial shift. Stephen G. Wozniak was the hardware-hacking engineer and Steven P. Jobs, who died in 2011 after a battle with cancer, was the business visionary.

Apple-1’s are scarce. An estimated 175 to 200 were produced in the Jobs family garage in Los Altos, Calif. Mike Willegal, who maintains an online registry of Apple-1’s, has verified the existence of 46 of them. A software manager at Cisco, Mr. Willegal observed that there was a technical nostalgia to the Apple-1, recalling a simpler time in computing.

“No one understands a whole computer system anymore,” Mr. Willegal said. “But Woz” — Mr. Wozniak’s nickname — “knew that board inside and out, and some people do today.”

A computer motherboard with clusters of chips was all that the bare-bones Apple-1 offered. Users had to supply their own keyboards, monitors and power supplies. It had 4 kilobytes of memory; a basic MacBook Air has more than a million times that. It could be used to run primitive computer games and write simple programs.

The Apple-1 was a reputation-building entry, but it was the Apple II, introduced a year later in 1977, that would sell in the millions and establish the company’s business. When Mr. Wozniak was designing the Apple II, he was also handling customer service for the Apple-1, a distracting time drain.

After the Apple II went on sale, the company began an aggressive trade-in program, offering Apple II’s and sometimes cash incentives in exchange for Apple-1’s, said Bob Luther, who is writing a book on the vintage machines, “The First Apple,” which he plans to self-publish, with help from a Kickstarter crowdfunding campaign.

In his book research, Mr. Luther called Michael Scott, Apple’s president from 1977 to 1981, and interviewed him about the trade-in program. As Mr. Luther recalled, Mr. Scott told him, “If we had done a better job, you and I wouldn’t be having this phone call.”

“They just wanted the Apple-1 to go away,” said Mr. Luther, who bought an Apple-1 for $7,600 in 2004. (“Mine’s not for sale.”)

Auction prices for Apple-1’s have not yet settled on firm standards. But according to Richard Austin, head of books and manuscripts at Sotheby’s, who handled the auction of the Apple-1 for $374,500 last year, working machines in pristine condition with documentation command the highest prices. “And a story behind it helps,” Mr. Austin added.

The Apple-1 being auctioned on Saturday has a story. Its original owner was Fred Hatfield, a retired electrical engineer living in New Orleans.

The documentation with the machine includes a letter to Mr. Hatfield, signed by Steve Jobs, offering him a new Apple II and a check for $400 for his Apple-1, said Mr. Breker, the German auctioneer. Mr. Hatfield declined the offer, for whatever reason.

Mr. Breker is irritatingly discreet about the identity of the seller, saying only that he is a young American who works for a software company. “He brought it over here in a blanket,” Mr. Breker said.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: May 25, 2013

An earlier version of this article misstated the identity of the original owner of an Apple-1 being auctioned on Saturday in Germany. The owner was Fred Hatfield, a retired electrical engineer living in New Orleans, not the Fred Hatfield who was a former professional baseball player who died in 1998.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/technology/apple-1-computers-jump-in-value-at-auctions.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Can Jeremy Grantham Profit From Ecological Mayhem?

Energy “will give us serious and sustained problems” over the next 50 years as we make the transition from hydrocarbons — oil, coal, gas — to solar, wind, nuclear and other sources, but we’ll muddle through to a solution to Peak Oil and related challenges. Peak Everything Else will prove more intractable for humanity. Metals, for instance, “are entropy at work . . . from wonderful metal ores to scattered waste,” and scarcity and higher prices “will slowly increase forever,” but if we scrimp and recycle, we can make do for another century before tight constraint kicks in.

Agriculture is more worrisome. Local water shortages will cause “persistent irritation” — wars, famines. Of the three essential macro nutrient fertilizers, nitrogen is relatively plentiful and recoverable, but we’re running out of potassium and phosphorus, finite mined resources that are “necessary for all life.” Canada has large reserves of potash (the source of potassium), which is good news for Americans, but 50 to 75 percent of the known reserves of phosphate (the source of phosphorus) are located in Morocco and the western Sahara. Assuming a 2 percent annual increase in phosphorus consumption, Grantham believes the rest of the world’s reserves won’t last more than 50 years, so he expects “gamesmanship” from the phosphate-rich.

And he rates soil erosion as the biggest threat of all. The world’s population could reach 10 billion within half a century — perhaps twice as many human beings as the planet’s overtaxed resources can sustainably support, perhaps six times too many.

Grantham, who is 72 and has what’s left of a British accent after living in Boston for more than four decades, outlined this wildly distressing assessment against a bland backdrop of chain décor and piped-in smooth jazz. He marked up his draft with a pen as he went along, departing from the text at times to emphasize a point. “Phosphorus makes up 1 percent of your body weight,” he said, looking up from the page to catch my eye. “It’s a basic element, the residue of exploded stars. You can’t just make more.” He also pointed out that most economists see global trade as a win-win proposition, but resource limitation turns it into a win-lose, zero-sum contest. “The faster China grows, the higher grain prices go, the more people in China or India who upgrade to meat, the higher the tendency for Africa to starve,” he said.

Grantham argues that the late-18th-century doomsayer Thomas Malthus pretty much got it right but just had the bad timing to make his predictions about unsustainable population growth on the eve of the hydrocarbon-fueled Industrial Revolution, which “partially removed the barriers to rapid population growth, wealth and scientific progress.” That put off the inevitable for a couple of centuries, but now, ready or not, the age of cheap hydrocarbons is ending. Grantham’s July letter concludes: “We humans have the brains and the means to reach real planetary sustainability. The problem is with us and our focus on short-term growth and profits, which is likely to cause suffering on a vast scale. With foresight and thoughtful planning, this suffering is completely avoidable.”

Grantham’s quarterly letters, which command a cult following of readers within and beyond the financial industry, inspire even the most short-term profit-minded investors to do a little fate-of-the-world-scale thinking. I find that they have the opposite, equally mind-stretching effect on a passive investor like me. Although I’m normally happy to turn over my paychecks to the missus and not inquire into what happens to them, my encounters with Grantham tend to whip me into a state of alarm that has me thinking about acquiring tracts of arable timbered high ground, preferably defensible ones well inland from the rising seas.

Doomsayers are always plentiful, and the economic and environmental news has encouraged even more doomsaying than usual of late, but Grantham compels attention, in part because he’s not simply prophesying doom. While it may be too late to “gracefully” deal with depleted resources­, climate change and related crises, it’s never too late to mitigate the damage. And, crucially, the consequences will be unevenly distributed, creating angles for you to make money and look out for your interests, however you define them.

Carlo Rotella (carlo.rotella@gmail.com) is the director of American Studies for Boston College.

Editor: Dean Robinson (d.robinson-MagGroup@nytimes.com)

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=4f109023604162f102ed5baf93240f2a