You'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.

Agree. 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.

You'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.

When 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.