You can absolutely guarantee everyone isn’t going to follow that rule so why bother considering it? Also, nothing says you need to keep investments forever, a rolling fund where after X months you sell the stocks and repurchase based on current spending habits could work just fine at scale.
Also, Apple shares also do not replace the functionality of a phone, so the true opportunity cost of buying a premium phone instead buying a cheaper phone and spending the remainder on shares.
Nobody bought a iPhone because they thought it would appreciate in value.
It isn't nobody, as evidenced by the continued existence of new-in-box original iPhones, which sell at auction for nosebleed prices.
The trick is to identify products which will be considered iconic, while they're still on the market. This is crystal-ball-gazing, and that kind of game isn't for everyone, but it only takes one smash hit to make a profit on the total investment. There are certainly people who do this as a hobby / side hustle.
Stock price isn't based on demand, so no that wouldn't work the way you think it would. These same stocks would be overvalued, with no fundamentals backing them as everyone wouldn't be buying the products/services to create those fundamentals.
Stock price is 100% based on demand and nothing else (well aside from new issuances or splits).
Demand is ideally a function of fundamentals.
The stock price being overvalued is irrelevant if “everyone” is buying it. This is a hyperbolic example but it plays out in the valuation of the sp500 when legions of folks just dump into an index fund.
