Steve Jobs to Sell Pixar and Join Disney Board?

mikeisme77 writes "According to the Washington Post, Pixar Studios is in discussions with Disney for a possible merger/buy out. Disney would own Pixar in exchange for $6.7 billion worth of stock in the Walt Disney Corp. Speculation has also arisen that such a deal may lead to Steve Jobs earning a position on Disney's board of directors. He would likely become Disney's largest individual share holder. Further speculation sees Jobs using his new found power to leverage Disney into releasing more content to the iTunes media service." Details also available from the Time Magazine site. We touched on this issue near the end of last year as well.

Comments

Another reverse takeover?

[chriss]

It's funny that most speculation is about how well Apples digital media distribution would fit to Disneys movie and merchandising franchise, when Disney is considering Pixar, not Apple. And there are a number of interesting things Disney could gain from Pixar besides the movie franchise. People.

When Apple went looking for a new operating system to replace the classic Mac OS, they ended up (after looking inhouse and at BeOS and even WinNT) with NeXTSTEP from Steve Jobs new company NeXT. They did not license NeXTSTEP (or the OpenStep Specification NeXT developed in corporation with Sun), instead they bought NeXT for $US 400 million. Steve Jobs came onboard as a consultant, but shortly after that replaced Gibert Amelio as CEO of Apple. He was not the only one, NeXTs Avi Tevanian became President of Software technology (I think), in charge of Apples OS development, other NeXT employees (Jon Rubinstein, Bud Tribble etc) got top positions at Apple. A lot of people considered this Apple paying money NeXT to take over Apple.

Disney is worth about 60 billion. If they buy Pixar for seven, the new Disney + Pixar should be worth about 67 billion (mind my non-existent knowledge about company evaluation), about 5% of which would belong to Steve Jobs (he owns 50% of Pixar). Apple was worth more than 20 times the $400 million they payed for NeXT when they bought it, they had seven billion in cash reserve alone, and they payed in cash, not stocks.

So maybe we will see another reverse takeover. I do not believe that Steve Jobs would want to become CEO (but will most likely join the board), but Edwin Catmull could become head of the animation and feature film branch or John Lasseter could become Disneys "creative director". He already worked there before joining Pixar (than Lucasfilm Computer Graphics Group). The quality of Disneys productions could only go up.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[Otter Escaping North]

The quality of Disneys productions could only go up.

Or Pixar could go way down. I hope you're right, and that the Pixar folks will run wild into Disney - but it's a hell of a beast to tame. I'd actually fear that Disney would feel a need to "ensure Pixar's ongoing creative success" and then screw it up.

Just like when Dinsney's second golden age of animation was born (Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Lion King) - it became a valuble commodity, and the suits felt the need to 'protect' it. The next think you know, the creative guys are jumping ship, and you're left with drek like "The Hunchback of Notre Dame."

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[AKAImBatman]

The first thing I thought of when I saw the headline: Will Steve Jobs soon be the new CEO of Disney?

I wouldn't put it past him, though I'm sure that many would think it a strange idea. He's already shown that he can be very charismatic, and that he knows how to run a company. IHMO, having Jobs at the helm of Disney might actually be an improvement. Disney's been dying for years due primarily to poor leadership. Unfortunately, they're just to big to completely die off. So getting Jobs to inject some of his own magic back into the Kingdom might just be what the doctor ordered. :-)

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[mustafap]

The Apple/Next fiasco is well documented and I dont think you should use it as a historical yardstick here.

It does make a great read though. Life really is stranger than fiction sometimes, and Steve Jobs has a way of making it so.

My mother-in-law has a rather unusual claim to fame. At a dinner with Steve Jobs once ( my father-in-law used to work for Apple, ) Steve asked her if she used the Apple-II her husband had been given.

"Oh no, I just dust it", she said.

I'd have loved to have been a fly on the wall there :o)

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[Edmund Blackadder]

If Disney is worth 60 bill and buys pixar for 7 billion then they will still be worth 60 billion. They pay 7 billion and get a company that is presumably worth 7 billion so their total market valuation does not change.

And no Steve will not take over Disney. The corporate culture there is so tight, it is very unlikely they will let any outsider in. Disney shareholders have been trying to get rid of Eisner unsuccesfully for ages.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[MikeFM]

I guess I see this is a path for an Apple/Disney merger. I'm not quite sure what that'd mean but it'd seem to be a better fit than the AOL/Time Warner merge. Apple and Pixar represent technology as art which is what Disney really needs to reclaim it's soul. Apple could leverage the Disney name and content to really make a strong move in the digital media market. I think Disney still owns ABC too which would just be more content at their fingertips. It seems it could be a powerful money making combination.

You don't get a much better child friendly combination than Apple and Disney. It'd present a lot of opportunity in the edutainment market in the least.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[PortHaven]

I believe the set-up is as follows:

- Disney gains Pixar (the vast majority of hit (bread & butter) Disney films in the past decade have been from Pixar).

- Steve Jobs loses control of Pixar but gains a seat on the board + becomes #1 share-holder.

- Steve negotiates sweet deal with Disney (and don't ABC or something), for said movies to be made available on Apple iPod. (And you know that Yuppieville will start filling their 8 yr old's iPods with with Pixar films before every road trip). Lots of $$$ for Apple and even more cash for Disney.

- Disney's stocks increase, meanwhile Steve jobs acquires additional stock 5% to approx. 6-8%. The increased success of Disney stock builds near unanimous support for Steve Jobs to be CEO of Disney. (If you know anything about Steve Jobs his IDOL is Walt Disney! So this has likely been his life dream/goal since being young.

- Steve Jobs as CEO re-vitalizes Disney. Disney theme parks return to being places full of wonder, awe, amazing new technologies on Display for the common people to see. (And yes, all the displays have little rainbow colored Apples on them.)

In truth, I think Disney greatly needs an eccentric visionary like Steve Jobs to return it back to "dreams". To Steve Jobs, Disney is not just about $$$. It's about dreams. And for the past few decades Disney's dream has solely been $$$. The end result, no vision, no dreams. Nothing to stir up the human sole. Less interest and love for Disney. Equating to less $$$. Steve Jobs has the philosophy the $$$ will come as a by-product of the vision. And I believe he's right. In truth, I think there is an opportunity to see Disney re-vitalized in a kinda second birth. Steve Jobs loves show-casing. Loves grand-standing (in the style of a circus leader). A revitalized Disney allows him to do such. And would bring back a central character for the first time since the passing of Walt Disney himself.

I actually hope this all goes thru....

- Saj

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[chriss]

If Disney is worth 60 bill and buys pixar for 7 billion then they will still be worth 60 billion.

If Disney is worth 60 billions before and after the aquisition, and Pixar is worth 7 billions before and does not exist anymore afterwards, where did the 7 billion go?

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[Azathoth!EDC]

Must be Schrödinger's Billions :)

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[frgough]

True entrepreneurs know it's not about the money. The money is just the way you keep score.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[rachit]

If it was a stock transaction, Disney + Pixar would be worth 67 billion.

If it was a cash transaction, the 7 billion in cash went from Disney's bank account to Pixar's shareholders. Disney + Pixar would be worth 60 billion.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

To the (previous) owners of Pixar.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[IAmTheDave]

and you're left with drek like "The Hunchback of Notre Dame."

Quite a legitimate fear. One of the reasons that Pixar does so well is the culture of the shop, developed by Jobs and run by Jobs. Take his somewhat psychotic nature out of the mix and allow Pixar to become just another Disney department overseen by the Disney corporate machine, and the brilliance that launced Toy Story, Finding Nemo, and The Incredibles may be lost forever.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[wolfdvh]

If Disney is worth 60 billions before and after the aquisition, and Pixar is worth 7 billions before and does not exist anymore afterwards, where did the 7 billion go?

Why to the shareholders (Owners) of Pixar, of course. They are free to keep part ownership of the new combined company or dump it if they think the merger is a bad idea.

60 billion - 7 billion payed to Pixar shareholders + the value of Pixar (7 billion again) means Disney is still worth 60 Billion. The 7 billion that Pixar is worth (purcahsed for) went to the owners of the thing being sold.

Now presumably Disney is willing to pay that price because they think they can increase the value over time to make it a good return on investment.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[rjstanford]

Let's look at it this way. Note - I don't want to simplify to the point of being insulting, just trying to help.

Let's pretend that each company is nothing more than a shell - a big ass bank account. This makes it easy to do the math. So Disney, Inc. has one assett - a checking account with $60B. Pixar has one assett, a checking account with $7B. Each company has issued stock to various people, which gives them the right to "control" the company (or, in other words, what it does with its cash).

The value of each company is pretty easy to determine in this case.

If Disney wants to acquire Pixar - for the sake of this grossly simplified sample, adding their $7B to the Disney account - they have to convince the people who currently control Pixar to let them. The easiest way to do this is to pay them cash:

Starting point
--------------
1000 Pixar shareholders with 1mm shares of stock each (stock price: $7) and no cash
1000 Disney shareholders with 1mm shares of stock each (stock price: $60) and no cash
Pixar with assets of $7B
Disney with assets of $60B

After cash transaction: Pixar bought by Disney for $7B in cash
----------------------
1000 ex-Pixar shareholders with $7mm cash each and no stock
1000 Disney shareholders with 1mm shares of stock each (stock price: $60)
Disney with assets of $60B

So, Disney has Pixar's assets (bank acct), but they had to pay out some cash to get them. Nothing has changed for DIS, which is why deals like this aren't cash-for-cash. So - they don't want to give up their cash - what else can they do?

Disney's board can make an offer to buy out Pixar for Disney stock instead. That way they end up with Pixar's $7B, but don't have to pay out any of their $60B, giving the new company a combined value of $67B. In order to do this, they will (with approval of their current shareholders (really the BOD, but for this example shareholders is fine) issue more stock in exchange for Pixar.

After stock transaction: Pixar bought by Disney for 116,666,666 shares of stock
------------------------

1000 ex-Pixar shareholders with $7mm cash each and no stock
1000 Disney shareholders with 1mm shares of stock each (stock price: $60)
Disney with assets of $60B

1000 ex-Pixar shareholders with 116,666 shares of DIS (stock price: $60)
1000 Disney shareholders with 1mm shares of stock each (stock price: $60)
Disney with assets of $67B

So each old Disney shareholder controls less of the company, as a percentage. This is important when it comes to voting. However, the company is worth more than it was before, so their individual cash positions are very similar. This would actually be a slightly bad deal for DIS shareholders though since there's more risk that the old Pixar guys, who can now vote on DIS issues, will do something they don't like.

In reality, you almost never see companies bought like this, for their cash. There's always something else, where the value of the new company is (in theory anyway) greater than the values of each company taken separately. That's almost a requirement, because:

a) In either of the first two examples, the Pixar guys probably wouldn't sell. They incur change (risk) and end up with much less control. This is why companies typically sell at a premium of their market valuation.

b) If the DIS shareholders didn't think that they were getting more than they were paying for, they wouldn't buy - they lose an amount of voting control as well due to the stock dilution.

To get back to your question:

If Disney is worth 60 billions before and after the aquisition, and Pixar is worth 7 billions before and does not exist anymore afterwards, where did the 7 billion go?

Into the pockets of the people who used to own shiny Pixar stock, and now don't.

Make sense?

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[chriss]

If it was a stock transaction, Disney + Pixar would be worth 67 billion.

Since Steve Jobs becomes the largest share holder of Disney, this seems to be a stock transaction, at least for the 50% of Pixar stock he holds.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[bohemian72]

I kind of liked Hunchback, if only because Frollo was such a conflicted character. I couldn't stand Hercules though and haven't been interested in much since.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[timster]

7 billion dollars will have been transferred from Disney to the investors of Pixar, if Disney purchases Pixar with cash.

In actual fact, Disney will probably purchase Pixar with stock, which basically means that all Pixar stock becomes Disney stock (at an exchange rate that both sides feel is favorable) and the combined company would be worth 67 billion.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nothing to stir up the human sole."

Well, I don't know - a lot of the stuff they produce probably does seem like something someone stepped in.

If you mean soul however, I agree.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[jordandeamattson]

Hi Chris -

While I agree with you, that Steve has an incredible ability to come out on top (I was there at ground zero when Apple bought NeXT), and it is likely that a post-acquisition Jobs would have tremendous influence over Disney, there are some errors in your analysis.

1. Disney is currently worth just show of $50 billion (look at market capitalization at http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=DIS>).

2. Jobs only controls approximately half of Pixar, with Pixar valued at just show of 7 billion http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=PIXR> as you said.

3. The deal would likely be a stock swap, not a cash deal, for various tax reasons. The new entity would likely be valued at between $55 and $60 billion, with Jobs controlling a $3 billion slice, or as you said 5%, of Disney.

4. While owning 5% of Disney is nothing to sneeze at, realize that Roy Disney controlled close to 17 million shares of Disney (close to 1%) as well as popular backing and wasn't able to get what he wanted.

Disney is a much different company from Apple in early 1997. It has plenty of money in the bank (Apple had closer to $2 billion in cash vs. the $7 billion you describe), has strong free cash flow (wheras things were quite shakey at Apple), and is on a rebound vs. heading downward. Remember it was only at MacWorld in the summer of 1997, that things started to turnaround with the famous investment of Microsoft in Apple and the promise to keep Office on the Mac for 5 years.

For Apple, Jobs was - rightfully - viewed as a savior, the only one who could turn this company around. At Disney, Jobs will be just another person at the boardroom table. Will he be a first among equals? Definitely! Will he be able to call all of the shots? No.

And in that fact, that he won't be able to call all the shots, is the truth that Jobs would not likely stay long on the board. Jobs is one who has to control things completely. If he can't, then he will walk away.

I firmly believe that if Pixar is sold to Disney, that Steve will not be long with Disney. Will he leave his mark on the company? Definitely. His people - like John Lasseter - will be in senior positions prior to his leaving. But he won't be around for long.

And that is a shame. Disney - based on our family's latest experience at Disneyland - really could use someone with Steve's drive for quality and attention to detail to bring back the fabled "Disney experience".

Yours,

Jordan

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[macadamia_harold]

I agree. I think it's more likely the quality of Pixar would go down.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[Quadraginta]

Is it not the case, however, that Disney has been looking for a good CEO for a while, what with the wretched Eisner mess? Maybe Jobs figures that when Eisner finally exits, stage right, the company will be looking for someone just as strong-willed but a tad less, er, stupid, not to put too fine a point on it, and if Jobs is sitting right there on the board, having previously made one or two very sensible suggestions in a quiet voice, and otherwise demonstrated a nice team-player spirit to re-assure the more conservative spirits on the board -- maybe he's sitting pretty? And it helps that's friends with Roy and can bring the maverick back home? If the board doesn't make the offer in 2006-07, or they don't make an offer he finds acceptable, he can always bail out...

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[SatanicPuppy]

God, Hercules...I'd blotted it out. At what point does it seem a good idea to apply christian ethos to greek mythology, especially when, at the same time, you're destroying the actual story.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[FidelCatsro]

I don't know, there are many similarities between Jesus and Hercules .
Both supposed Son's of G-d/s , both most likely didn't exist , both went around performing miracles , both were invented in Greece .

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[jordandeamattson]

Hi Q -

Disney has already replaced Eisner with Bob Iger, who is CEO. The Chairman of the Board is George Mitchell.

I don't see Iger giving up his role anytime soon. George Mitchell could probably be convinced to step down and give the Chairman role to Jobs.

Yours,

Jordan

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[not-enough-info]

-Steve Jobs to cryogenically frozen head of Walt Disney: "You're mine now! all mine..."

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[Yocto Yotta]

Assuming Disney wants to plop the Pixar group behind a pane of Plexi at Disney Studios (it's sans-MGM now, right?) in Orlando.

They probably won't be going anywhere. Most companies know better than to mess with a good thing when they absorb other corporations. You ditch the financial, legal, and human resource departments of the smaller of the two, and let the minds be.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

The GP's scenario seems plausible. Your fantasy overestimates Steve Jobs's power, influence, and ability.

If you think Jobs can convince Disney shareholders Gordon Gecko-style to let him run that uber-corporation as well as that comparatively simple fruit company, then you either overestimate Jobs's abilities or underestimate the size and complexity of Disney.

To summarize the obvious: Convincing Disney shareholders to promote Jobs to CEO is not the same as convincing Apple shareholders to promote their iGod.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[jacksonj04]

Hunchback was acceptable, it really began to fail around that time though. Pocahontas etc were wavering considerably, then by Tarzan it had dropped to poorly-animated part-computerised crud backed by Phil Collins.

Lion King... now that's a movie which should live forever. The stage version ain't half bad either.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you know why Job is forcing Apple down the Trusted Computing route.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's definitely extrabiblical references to Jesus. You might as well say Julius Caesar likely didn't exist.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[Yocto Yotta]

Eisner's gone, replaced by Robert Iger. And, not to blatently cheer but, if there was one guy who could take over a company like Disney, it would be the coup-experienced Jobs. Sure, he was certainly an "insider" already when he regained control of Apple, but while not "inside" Disney comparitively, Jobs' Pixar has creative and financial seniority that will be sitting at the very top of the Disney chain. Disney has closed almost all of their (all?) traditional animation studios, and are banking completely on CG to carry them forward. Pixar is undisputibly the champion of mainstream CG animation. Jobs taking over Disney all hinges on whether Disney is stupid enough to let him direct their visual entertainment business.

Just for fun, think about what it would be like if Jobs had control of ABC.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are also a large number of people who believe that they have evidence that Xenu flew around in space ships that looked like aircraft .
There were probably thousands of people called Jesus , Finding evidence that a guy named Jesus lived around that time is not impressive .

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[John Harrison]

Most companies know better than to mess with a good thing when they absorb other corporations.

I take it you've never witnessed a merger first hand, have you?

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[AKAImBatman]

Just for fun, think about what it would be like if Jobs had control of ABC.

I think I see where you're going with this. If Jobs became the new CEO of Disney, Jobs would gain full control of ABC. If Jobs gained full control of ABC, he would have all the powers of a television network. If he had all the powers of a television network, then he'd have all the powers to make a deal with other television networks. If he had all the powers to make deals with other television networks, then he could sit down with Fox and buy the rights to Firefly. The he could restart the series, hopefully ignoring the unfortunate events of the movie, and the browncoats could win! Right? Right? Wahoo! You can't take the sky from me!

...

Um...

That is what you were getting at, wasn't it? :-P

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Steve Jobs wanted to run Disney, he could, despite anything Bob Iger might want. Never underestimate the power of the RDF! But I don't think he wants to - it's really not his business, and I think he sees Apple (which is, after all, his baby) as being where the action is for the next decade. He will want to have Disney in his back pocket to leverage media deals he wants to do, but he'll let them run themselves unless they really mess it up...

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[bobintetley]

Nothing to stir up the human sole.

Hmmmm - sounds fishy...

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[rufty_tufty]

Yes, if you watch the film "Cleopatra" and it says "All characters portrayed in this film are fictitious...".
Therefore Cleopatera, Mark Antony and Julius himself can't have existed.

I never checked what it said at the end of "Jesus Christ Superstar though..."

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[Digital Pizza]

Maybe I'm just a glass-half-full kind of guy, but I see some great potential here. I believe that Roy Disney is still a big Disney stockholder, and he's been a great advocate for the animators and creative staff over the suits, hence the bad blood between him and Eisner. He may well wish to come back into the fold and work with Jobs and the Pixar team. If things worked out that way, you may see some amazing things come out of the merger.

Here's hoping.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[Farmer Tim]

I never checked what it said at the end of "Jesus Christ Superstar" though...

It said: "Any similarity between this musical and entertainment, either living or dead, is entirely coincidental"

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[hondo77]

The next think you know, the creative guys are jumping ship, and you're left with drek like "The Hunchback of Notre Dame."

There was actually a point where Hunchback was a very good and powerful movie. Then somebody decided the gargoyles needed a bigger role and a song. Sigh...

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, yes, I suppose I used the term "most" pretty carelessly.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[Simon Garlick]

There's definitely extrabiblical references to Jesus. You might as well say Julius Caesar likely didn't exist.

Yes, but we have are multiple contemporary reports from reliable sources that Julius Caesar existed. We have none that Jesus did.

(Unless you count the Gospels. Yeah, right.)

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[cgenman]

Disney is a much different company from Apple in early 1997. It has plenty of money in the bank (Apple had closer to $2 billion in cash vs. the $7 billion you describe), has strong free cash flow (wheras things were quite shakey at Apple), and is on a rebound vs. heading downward. Remember it was only at MacWorld in the summer of 1997, that things started to turnaround with the famous investment of Microsoft in Apple and the promise to keep Office on the Mac for 5 years.

If Disney can be said to be "on the rebound," that's only because it sunk terribly, terribly low. California Adventure was a miserable failure, standing unused next to a park that is perpetually overcrowded and run down. The few "enhancements" to the old Disneyland had to be closed because they weren't made properly. Disney Animation has had a string of duds like Chicken Little, Atlantis, Treasure Planet, etc etc. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and Pirates of the Carrabean have helped Disney's movie arm to not be a miserable failure these past few years, but that's not saying much. And for every one of those there are dozens of Haunted Mansions and Herbie: Fully Loadeds. The stockholders have been constantly threatening to behead Michael Eisner for poor performance.

Now, Disney is a big company and owns things which aren't going down... like ABC and ESPN. But to go from a company that not only dominated family friendly entertainment but drew loyalty unparalleled by any company besides Apple, down to a company that's churning out second-rate direct-to-videos and whose flagships are falling apart is downright sad. Disney is looking at games, is looking at the internet, and is realizing that it doesn't have a part in either. While this happens, it is watching its movie business flounder and its flagship theme park business fall apart.

The margins Disney products demand are based upon their cultural relevance, and the shareholders are sitting there watching the strongest brand in history disappear.

You can't blame them for feeling that they're being dragged into irrelevance. And they'd be right. I don't know if this is the right step for Steve Jobs, but the board at Disney would be fools to not give him the reigns.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[Reaperducer]

Yes, but we have are multiple contemporary reports from reliable sources that Julius Caesar existed. We have none that Jesus did.

You are incorrect. There are hundreds of contemporary non-Christian recorded reports of Jesus, many by the Romans, themselves. The reports don't all say he was a miracle worker or hail him as a prophet, but they do document his existance and the following he developed. You've been drinking the athiesm Kool-Aid again.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[elmegil]

I think he'll just keep feeding the Walt Disney Monster small cuban boys.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[Lord Flipper]

I take it you've never witnessed a merger first hand, have you?

And how many were you personally involved with...one?

So, we can assume you have no knowledge of Rule One in bigtime Investment: "If you like somebody's business enough to buy it, don't turn around and fuck with it."

Maybe that collides with your extensive familiarity with M&A's whose results don't bolster your slightly-juvenile take on it all. Whatever.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[netsharc]

And then we turn to politics.. if he does end up being a media-mogul like Rupert Murdoch, I hope his enterprise would be more neutral to counterbalance the extremist right of Fox (Uh oh, flamebait, if anyone feels like arguing about politics, let's not, it's all been discussed).

But wow, if you trace him back to his roots, this is the same guy who invented the first mass-market user-friendly desktop computer. And we all thought Bill Gates was going to rule the world. Somehow I'm reminded of "Tomorrow Never Dies", where James Bond's enemy is a Rupert Murdoch + Bill Gates-type of character. That would be Jobs! At least if his life turn out the way you predicted it would. :P

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hundreds? Name one. There are accounts of many similar supposed messiahs, but there aren't even any Christian contemporary records of Jesus - the "gospels" were written decades after he allegedly was crucified.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

'extrabiblical'

As in, not in the bible.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[Scudsucker]

There was actually a point where Hunchback was a very good and powerful movie. Then somebody decided the gargoyles needed a bigger role and a song. Sigh...

Of course they did, it was a Disney movie, so it had to be a musical with highly annoying sidekicks. I don't think it's cooincidence that only Disney movie I've liked in at least a decade has been the one to break that mold, The Emperor's New Groove.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[kermitthefrog917]

Has disney really lost the magic? or has our definition of "the magic" changed? This thought process is especiially interesting to me, as an 18 year old, because I really can't tell if disney movies just aren't as good as they used to be, or whether I have just grown out of them. Yes, I compare the classics with the new movies and even now I can notice that there's something missing in the newer movies, but that may be subject entirely to nostalgia. Any thoughts?

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[Simon Garlick]

Name one. Just one.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[FidelCatsro]

I can name a few .. and refute all of them.
The writings of Flavius Josephus ,which seem to mention things about Jesus :They were discovered to be highly unlike his other writings and are most likely forgeries .
Pliny the Younger wrote about Jesus in 110 CE , commonly cited as being a source for a historical Jesus, had actually just written the beliefs of Christians
The others were all written around 110CE and non of them recount any real history on the beliefs of Christians .

the only evidence you have really to a historical Jesus is the gospels and coincidence (Jesus is derived from Joshua or the Aramaic Yehshua ,Spelling not correct on the Aramaic)
Which was not an uncommon name , neither was Joseph or Miriam .
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack .. so I can not Categorically state there was no historic figure , but I strongly believe there was not

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[jcr]

One of the reasons that Pixar does so well is the culture of the shop, developed by Jobs and run by Jobs.

Umm.. Acording the people I know there, Steve is the banker, Ed Catmull runs the company, and John Lasseter is the man in charge of the movies. Pixar works very, very well, because they recruit the best people they can find, and they let them do their jobs.

-jcr

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[jcr]

The Apple/Next fiasco

Fiasco? It's one of the greatest turnaround stories in the history of American business.

-jcr

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[John Harrison]

Lord Flipper,

I've watched the company I work for purchase several promising companies. In two of the three cases I know some details of, most of the talent from those companies has left. In the third case it is too soon to tell but I've heard that people are leaving. The culture change is hard to swallow for some people and many large companies like their one-size-fits-all culture so much that they force it on everything they buy.

Your "one big rule" gets violated each and every time in my admitedly limited experience.

How many have you lived through, since you are claiming some expertise here?

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[mink]

I quite enjoyed Emperors New Groove, even if it was just a typical buddy film that has been done am illion times. I'm also told Lilo and Stich was good quality as well. It would appear the studio that was closed down was responsable for these better films. While the micro managed close to HQ studio is the one producing things people have not liked.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[mink]

I enjoyed reading your last line and then your sig.

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[Gilmoure]

I think Lion King and Beauty and the Beast were the last 'good' Disney flicks. Lilo and Stitch and Emperor's New Groove are ok but don't really stand up to repeated viewings (have 5 year old who knows how to work DVD player).

Re:Another reverse takeover?

[Gilmoure]

-Or-

How to be paid to take over a company

Pretty slick moves there.

Jobs' newfound powers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Jobs has newfound powers? Oh dear...

That would be great

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet Disney will be 4 times faster with Steve inside(tm).

SCNR! :D

Re:That would be great

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet Disney will be 4 times faster with Steve inside(tm).

Nice one indeed :-D

Re:That would be great

[FaasNat]

I think you mean snappier... ;-)

Re:That would be great

[EnsilZah]

I think you mean it would Leap Ahead.

Woo!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes!!! I can now buy the Bambi soundtrack on iTunes! Life couldn't be any better

Great News

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait for the new iMickey movies to come out!

Welcome

[shamowfski]

I welcome our new media overlord! Hail Jobs!

Re:Welcome

[ackthpt]

I welcome our new media overlord! Hail Jobs!

More like Jobs proves the Peter Principle as the wretched hive of scum and villainy, which is Disney, would place in in a position where he would be doomed to failure and then easily sidelined. Kicking ass at Apple was easy, trying to change things at Disney will prove much harder.

On another note, you can pretty much kiss the quality of Pixar story lines and character development good-bye as the worn-out 'characters with attitude' crap takes over and stories become boilerplate.

Disney doesn't suffer for it's lack of ability to produce a decent product, it suffers from the same ideas and ways of thinking which have brought it down from its hey-day, when mean old Unca Walt was in charge.

Re:Welcome

[justsomebody]

Just as expected. All Mac zealots will now become Bambi followers:)

Re:Welcome

[DerekLyons]

Disney doesn't suffer for it's lack of ability to produce a decent product, it suffers from the same ideas and ways of thinking which have brought it down from its hey-day, when mean old Unca Walt was in charge.

Looking at the bottom line, Disney doesn't suffer much at all. For a company that sucks as much as they /.ers would have you believe - they are making a hell of a lot of money.

Would be a great move.

[Mahkno]

Open up Disney's huge catalogue of short animations pieces, sell em for a $1. Nice... When is the last time you saw a short Mickey Mouse cartoon? Exactly.

Re:Would be a great move.

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I'd rather have them releaced under public domain.

Y'know, like they should be before they screwed up the system.

Re:Would be a great move.

[jZnat]

When is the last time you saw a short Mickey Mouse cartoon?

Never if Disney continues to corrupt the copyright laws. I'd rather consider anything published before 1986 to be public domain, but I'm not going to do anything large enough to warrant legal issues.

Re:Would be a great move.

[AKAImBatman]

While I don't like what Disney did with the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, I can understand why they did it. Some property is so valuable that letting its rights lapse could do irreparable harm to its owners. Obviously, the founding fathers had intended for everyone to suck it up and deal with it, but modern history has shown that there can be some real value in controlling old property. (e.g. All those Plug 'N Play TV Games rely on old copyrights to compete in the market.) Yet at the same time, there is huge swaths of literature and entertainment that are being lost daily through overprotective copyright protection.

I'm really starting to think that what we need is a default copyright that's shorter than ever before, but is at the same time renewable. My idea is that the auto-copyright should be granted for 10 years. Should the owner of the property wish to extend that protection to 20 years, he must register his copyright. Once that 20 years is up, the current owner of the copyright must file for an extension every 5 years thereafter. The final cap on the copyright would be the life + 75 years used today.

That would allow for all the property that would otherwise be lost to be reclaimed. e.g. If a company goes out of business, you only have to wait a few years before you can start sharing an archive of their work. But at the same time Mickey Mouse gets the protection he needs to prevent freeloaders from misusing a copyright that is still very much alive. I'm not sure we could ever convince lawmakers, but it would solve a lot of problems.

Re:Would be a great move.

[petermgreen]

e.g. All those Plug 'N Play TV Games rely on old copyrights to compete in the market.
i was under the impression that lots of those were completely pirate devices anyway (though there are probablly some legit ones too).

Re:Would be a great move.

[rjstanford]

If a company goes out of business, you only have to wait a few years before you can start sharing an archive of their work

The only thing here is that someone always owns the copyright - either an individual or a corporate entity, that is. When a company goes out of business its assets (and a (c) is an asset) are divided up amongst its creditors and owners (shareholders). There's no telling who ends up with it, but someone does, and they would have the right to renew.

Personally, I'd like to see the fees double every five years as well with no expiration. That way, if there was a pressing economic reason to deny the public copyright, someone like Disney could keep the Mouse to themselves forever. That economic burden would get pretty large though, to compensate the country as a whole for the cultural denial (well, in theory) that the corporation is extending.

Re:Would be a great move.

[HTH NE1]

Personally, I'd rather have them releaced under public domain.

Indeed, I'd rather see Jobs using his newfound power to leverage Disney into ceasing its never-ending extensions of copyright duration and instead work to curtail them, preferably to something sub-life of the work itself.

Re:Would be a great move.

[AKAImBatman]

There used to be a fairly large market of pirate devices. However, JAKKS legitimized the concept by producing their arcade joysticks under proper licensing. It wasn't long before Atari, Coleco, Intellivision, Sega, Capcom, and Konami were all chomping at the bit to get their piece of the market. Now you can barely get near the toy section at Wal-mart without seeing hundreds of the little PNP buggers. Some of them are pretty cool (e.g. Ms. Pacman/Galaga) and some of them are not so cool (e.g. Intellivision Lives! Controller, blech), but nearly all of them are legal. (I've heard reports of a few no-name systems making their way into stores. The game hacks on them are not very appealing to begin with, so it's not really an issue.)

Pick up a Flashback 2.0 game system sometime. It's produced by the current Atari Co. and loaded with real 2600 games. The chipset is a real 2600-on-a-chip, and can even be modified to play the original 2600 cartridges! Atari even got a license to put two Activision games (Pitfall! and River Raid) into the system. You might be surprised at how nice (and legal!) it is. :-)

Re:Would be a great move.

['nother poster]

But the issue is that copyrights were never meant to be used that way. They were meant to be a mechanism that would allow authors and artists a mechanism to attempt to recoup the costs of creation, and a profit from their creative endevours while causing them to have to continue to be creative. That means that the limited nature of the copyright meant that if the cration was a smashing success, you would still need to create new content in seven or fourteen years if you wanted to get paid more. It was a mechanist to foster CREATION of new materials, not protection of old.

Re:Would be a great move.

[AKAImBatman]

When a company goes out of business its assets (and a (c) is an asset) are divided up amongst its creditors and owners (shareholders). There's no telling who ends up with it, but someone does, and they would have the right to renew.

To clarify, my point was that if the copyrights went into limbo (as they often do), they would actually have a chance to expire. Today the copyrights go into limbo and no one can afford the cost of tracking down the real owner until someone else starts making money off the property. (Even in an indirect fashion.) Then some slimeball finds the original creator, buys the rights, and sues the pants off everyone.

A renewable copyright would force one of two things to happen:

1. The copyright would expire and enter public domain.
2. The current owner would renew the copyright every five years, thus making it clear who the current custodian is for licensing deals.

It's not a perfect system (nothing is), but it's a heck of a lot better than what we have now. How many early computer programs have been lost to rot? :-(

Re:Would be a great move.

[AKAImBatman]

It was a mechanist to foster CREATION of new materials, not protection of old.

The key is that no one ever expected the derivitive works to become such an important part of business. Does Disney make much money off the Steamboat Willy cartoon? No. Probably not any at all. But every Mickey Mouse cartoon and use of Mickey as a mascot after it is a derivitive work. Should Disney allow Steamboat Willy into the Public Domain, it is very possible that improper marketing of these "public domain" works could cause damage to Disney's reputation in the market. That is why they're worried about letting go of it.

IMHO, Disney's position is reasonable. What they did to protect themselves was not. The solution I'm proposing would air out a LOT of the works that were suddenly lost do to the market's inability to archive, restore, and make derivitive works of these items.

Re:Would be a great move.

[richie2000]

I like to think about extending copyright to 500 years.

Retroactively.

After all of Disney's execs had a massive group-orgasm, one of the brighter ones would crawl out from under the sea of cum and realize the implications, ruining the party. They'd have to find each and every living heir to the guy who wrote Cinderella and negotiate the movie rights for the derivative work. For millions and millions. Per heir.

Add Snow White, The Hunchback and even Buster Keaton's Steamboat Bill to the mix and you'd be looking at an instant bankruptcy.

After that's done, we could revoke copyrights altogether.

But, first you need to read this book: Lawrence Lessig - Free Culture. You'll love it.

Re:Would be a great move.

[Anonymous Coward]

> When is the last time you saw a short Mickey Mouse cartoon? Exactly.

Quite recently actually, and I can watch them whenever I like, since I got the Living color collections. Here in the Netherlands they sold for only 13 euros each (without the tin can packaging), which made them a much better deal than $1 per cartoon.

Re:Would be a great move.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a perfect example of a post that could have been insightful, but outright spoils it with vulgarity. It's a crying shame, it is.

Re:Would be a great move.

[mOdQuArK!]

Some property is so valuable that letting its rights lapse could do irreparable harm to its owners. Obviously, the founding fathers had intended for everyone to suck it up and deal with it, but modern history has shown that there can be some real value in controlling old property.

The basic problem is that some parasites think controlling that old intellectual "property" is much more valuable to _them_ (the parasites) than the value that the overall society would derive by having that those concepts & expressions available publically.

There is no societal benefit by supporting such parasites, and you shouldn't be wasting your time & brainpower trying to figure out such ways. Even a short-term copyright is a _privilege_ granted to creators by society in the hopes that it will encourage more creativity, not a right. If it can't be demonstrated that the desired goal (of fostering creativity) is being achieved, then that privilege should be revoked.

Re:Would be a great move.

[AKAImBatman]

But how is Disney a parasite of their own property? They own Mickey Mouse. They've always owned Mickey Mouse. They still use him as a key ingredient in many of their product. (i.e. Creating new works derived from their old ones.)

How is Atari a parasite of their work? They paid to have a brand new 2600-on-a-chip made so that they could produce a compatible console with 40 of their old games.

How is Intellivision Productions a parasite? The original programmers continue to bring the original games back to life by producing an official emulator, and finishing previously unreleased games.

How is Peter Jackson a parasite? He licensed the rights to Lord of the Rings to produce blockbuster movies that paid true homage to the concept. (Well, for the most part. I still take issue with some of it. :-))

The parasites are the SCOs of the world. The guys who buy up rights to DRDOS so they can sue Microsoft. That grab for original Unix rights so they can pretend that they have a case against a massive company. These guys are scum, plain and simple. My plan wouldn't eliminate all of them (there's no way to without becoming draconian), but it would at least free many materials that would otherwise be acquired by scum and misused, or forever lost to history for fear that the same scum would grab the rights and extort money for them.

Re:Would be a great move.

[jonwil]

I like this idea.

I think it should be changed so that if the copyrighted work is generally available (e.g. available for download or available for purchase), you dont have to file, you would only have to file if you want to keep copyright on a work you no longer distribute (this would encourage companies like Disney to keep their old stuff available so they dont have to pay filing fees on it)

Re:Would be a great move.

[Anonymous Coward]

The original Atari company is long gone. The French company Infogrames bought the rights and renamed themselves.

Re:Would be a great move.

[Trogre]

Of course if the Public Domain still existed you wouldn't have to pay for them.

Mickey would be free.

Re:Would be a great move.

[rufty_tufty]

You're confusing the indivisual and the corporation. But that's ok courts make the same mistake all the time so I can forgive you.

Atari doesn't create the games. Programmers do. Disney (the company) didn't create Micky Mouse, Walt did.

Yes in the modern world things are created via teams, so no one thing is the creation of any one person, and it's funded by the company, so the easy soilution seems to be to class the company as the creator. This is a mistake though. Disney has lost the right to claim copyright on Micky mouse cartoons as soon as Micky mouse cartoons are no longer any significant part of their income. If they want to use it as a trade mark, then trade mark it - if you want the protection of copyright then go ahead, but remember that copyright lapses 25 years (sorry, 50 years, ooops no 75 years, oops no...) after the creators death.

As soon as disney stops ripping off stories like Beauty and the beast, Hunchback, Hercules etc etc then they might have a leg to stand on. But if Disney themselves have no respect for the lapsed copyright of others then they are hypocrytical in trying to extend copyright.

Re:Would be a great move.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mickey's use as a mascot is protected as it's a Disney trademark (and will be for as long as they keep filing the appropriate periodic notices with the feds). Which is why their action to extend copyright so long is so inane.

Value of "Steamboat Willie": $50,000
Buying off Congress: $149,612 (http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1998/nov98/98-11 -25.html)
Completely ruining the US copyright system: Priceless

Re:Would be a great move.

[mOdQuArK!]

You seem to be completely misled into thinking that ideas & expressions of ideas can be treated like normal property. You're not going to be able to think rationally about the pros & cons of legally-enforced control of information until you can get that idea out of your head.

It's physically impossible for anyone to "own" an idea. If it _were_ possible to do so, then ideas could be treated like any other piece of property & we wouldn't need a whole section of special legislation devoted to "intellectual property" - normal property laws would've been good enough.

When somebody holds a copyright on some information, they are basically holding the privilege of being able to ask the government to stop someone else from copying that information (and a similar situation with patents). (I approach trademarks a little differently than with copyrights & patents, because I feel that trademarks are more of fraud issue than an attempt to create an artificial monopoly on information.)

This is an entirely artificial privilege which has been granted by legislation, and its _sole_ justification is that allowing people have this privilege somehow provides a net benefit to society. I believe that the current state of "intellectual property" laws is not meeting this justification, and is actually impeding creativity & innovation in our society.

Re:Would be a great move.

[ZB Mowrey]

I believe that the current state of "intellectual property" laws is not meeting this justification, and is actually impeding creativity & innovation in our society.

Okay, I've seen about a thousand different ideas for altering or outright disposing of the copyright system. Many of the arguments presented hinge on the point that the current system, by extending copyright for such a long term, is inhibiting creativity.

How exactly is it that not allowing someone to re-use an old idea (say, Mickey Mouse) is somehow stifling creativity? In my mind, a long copyright term almost seems to *enforce* creativity. If you can't re-use the ideas and images of others, you're going to have to come up with content on your own, right?

I couldn't care less about trademark law, so long as no generic terms are allowed as trademarks. What's left?

Patents. As far as I can see, the Patent system is the only area of IP law that really has an inhibiting effect on innovation. There are only two kinds of successful inventors: those who can afford to thoroughly research existing patents, looking for submarine patents, and those who have the savvy to sell their ideas to companies (either for research and production, or as part of a patent portfolio).

If I'm missing something here, please feel free to point it out, but I just don't see where limiting peoples' ability to copy already-existent ideas somehow inhibits new creations.

Re:Would be a great move.

['nother poster]

Derivitive works were well known to the founding fathers. They expected you to get off your butt and make them to support the lifestyle to which you had become acquainted. They also expected others to use your creations as the basis for their own creations. Sort of a feedback loop. The idea was to allow the creators to make a profit, but force them to create more. Disney isn't knocking down doors to find the descendents of Hans Christian Anderson to pay them a buttload of money for using their ancestors story as the basis to derive their blockbuster of a few years ago. They are more than happy create works that are derivitive of other peoples creations, but they damn well don't want others to do the same thing with their creations. Disney made it's fortune on the backs of great storytellers of the past, but don't want to contribute to those who come after them in the same way. I am all for for compensating people for the tremendous effort it takes to create new things, but I think the present scheme, and your scheme stifle creativity, and that is the wrong thing to do.

Re:Would be a great move.

[Scudsucker]

How exactly is it that not allowing someone to re-use an old idea (say, Mickey Mouse) is somehow stifling creativity?

Why don't you spend a couple minutes thinking about the movies that Disney has made, where the ideas for those movies came from, and then get back to us on that one.

In my mind, a long copyright term almost seems to *enforce* creativity.

Not possible, because truly origional ideas are very hard to come by. For example, Lucas couldn't have lightsabres because anime companies in Japan had "beam weapons" before Star Wars was made.

Re:Would be a great move.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be a prude. "Vulgarity" does nothing whatsoever to reduce the truth of a statement. Less polite, maybe, but that's something else. And his post wasn't vulgar. Go pop a MYOB pill and go back to bed.

Re:Would be a great move.

[mankey wanker]

Stop spouting nonsense. This is all you have to understand:

Any intellectual property right is a legal creation. It's not like actually having possession of an apple in your pocket - if you eat the apple it's gone forever in every way that makes owning the apple worthwhile, but it's also in the nature of the apple that it has a point of edible ripeness before it turns to rot. Ideas have a kind of ripeness also - and that's why they get protection by way of copyrights and patent. But just as an apple rots, the moment of ripeness for an idea gives way to a decline in its value. It is at that point that we have decided we would allow ideas previously protected by copyrights and patents to lapse into the public domain where they may be used by one and all.

It is right, just, and fair that previously protected ideas lapse into the public domain - that's quid pro quo, a little protection of a private and exclusive right from society up front becomes a good and a benefit to society as a whole later on.

When you give the private sector in terms of extended rights to intellectual property, you take from the commons. Where is the quid pro quo? You can't extend rights for Disney corp without stealing from society as a whole to do it. We already held up our end of the bargain by protecting Disney's right for quite some time, this 11th hour extended rights bullshit is immoral.

All thing change. All things die. Copyrights and patents should expire.

It's as simple as that. Stop bending over backwards trying to justify Disney's 11th hour theft from the commons.

Re:Would be a great move.

[HuguesT]

Your take on "not allowing reuse actually fosters creativity" is somewhat simplistic, no offence meant.

We observe that the golden years at Disney, when they did their stunning best work, was when they reused old, public domain plots to make new stuff. Cinderella, Pinocchio, Snow white, all were books and stories in the public domain. Disney was able to reuse & extend them to fit with their idea of what works with animation, with great result.

It worked because Disney was able to start from great plot ideas, with no one telling them what they were allowed to do and not to do with those plots.

Another example is what is happening to Bloomsday, an international celebration of James Joyce masterpiece "Ulysses", more or less the de-facto anglo-saxon litterary day of fun. Here is a great quote from this site.

At the moment, the role of lead Ulysses killjoy is being played by Joyce's last living heir, the issueless, irritable grandson Stephen James Joyce. Thanks to European Union copyright extensions, Stephen Joyce regained control of the author's published works in the mid-1990s. Since then, he has alienated most of his grandfather's fans by charging exorbitant rates to anthologists and artists, putting the kibosh on a host of adaptations he considered inappropriate (including Groden's "Digital Ulysses" annotation project), and reportedly stating that Ulysses is meant to be read, not performed or adapted to other media.

It is a textbook example of not releasing copyright to the public domain is measurably and undeniably stifling creativity and even causing damage to the original work. I encourage you to read the whole article.

Best.

Re:Would be a great move.

[westlake]

When is the last time you saw a short Mickey Mouse cartoon?
Never if Disney continues to corrupt the copyright laws

Quickly now: name one "lost" Disney film, from the silent era to the present.

The plain truth is that the studio's archives are essentially complete and self-financing. Simple preservation costs money. Restoration costs more.

Public domain status guarantees the survival of nothing: "In spite of the heroic efforts of archives, the motion picture industry and others, America's film heritage, by any measure, is an endangered species. Fifty percent of the films produced before 1950 and 80 to 90 percent made before 1920 have disappeared forever. Sadly, our enthusiasm for watching films has proved far greater than our commitment to preserving them. And, ominously, more films are lost each year"

Re:Would be a great move.

[jZnat]

If they were public domain, then anyone could make digital versions of it and distribute it around. Digital copies can last forever if you're using an open standard (i.e. fully available specifications and whatnot), so that problem gets solved rather easily. Of course, Disney et al. could digitally restore their old stuff, charge for copies, but the actual content would be public domain. Just because something is public domain doesn't mean you can't charge for it.

iDisney...

[__aaclcg7560]

Does this mean that a Mac laptop will be included in the purchase price of an "E" ticket?

Re:iDisney...

[CptNerd]

I wonder if they would sell MickeyMacs?

^___^

Re:iDisney...

[oahazmatt]

"Does this mean that a Mac laptop will be included in the purchase price of an "E" ticket?"

Doubt it, but maybe we'll get a nice "bong" when Space Mountain starts.

Jobs will never be a successful number 2.

[Futurepower(R)]

Difficult individualists like Jobs are never successful taking a number 2 position at a company like Disney. Consider for example Turner at Time Warner.

Consider the man Eisner hired, who didn't last long. I forget his name.

Re:Jobs will never be a successful number 2.

[dirvish]

I agree. I doubt this is really about Jobs joining the Disney board. The speculation about a iTunes content deal seems much more likely.

Re:Jobs will never be a successful number 2.

[urine]

I agree. He's definitely more of a #1 kind of guy. I guess that's why I find him such an interesting man! Steve is #1 yeah!!!

Re:Jobs will never be a successful number 2.

[Anonymous Coward]

Difficult individualists like Jobs are never successful taking a number 2 position at a company like Disney. Consider for example Turner at Time Warner.

Or consider Jobs' return to Apple. He rejoined as a "consultant" and the immediate consensus was something along the lines of "Jobs is going to fuck Amelio in the ass so hard his eyes will pop out." (I forget the exact quote and who said it, but it was quite graphic, and represented what everyone was thinking at the time.) As expected, it happened, and Jobs won. Expect a similar situation at Disney if anyone resists The Steve.

Re:Jobs will never be a successful number 2.

[somethinghollow]

According to a story that I can't find a link to, Steve easily usurped Gil Amelio to become Apple CEO after Apple bought NeXT. I'm sure he could figure out a way to "steal" the reigns from Eisner, who (as far as I've heard) has been as good for Disney as a hole is for a boat.

Re:Jobs will never be a successful number 2.

[Futurepower(R)]

Eisner is gone now. In the early years, I understand he was okay, although I usually don't like Disney entertainment.

Robert A. Iger is the CEO now.

Isn't the internet wonderful? Someone might doubt what I say, but not when I link to the company web site.

Re:Jobs will never be a successful number 2.

[ACME Septic]

Yes, maybe, but consider this: "Why does number 2 work for???"

Re:Jobs will never be a successful number 2.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Who is number 1? You are number 6. I am not a number, I am a free man!"

Re:Jobs will never be a successful number 2.

[tyrione]

Wrong. Steve actually walked out of being the special Consultant to Gil because Gil wasn't taking his advice. Steve diverted all of his attentions back to PIXAR which was starting to wear on the highly "artistic" bunch at PIXAR.

CFO Fred Anderson approached Steve on the idea of having him return as the CEO with the board voting Gil out of his position. Steve insisted on the iterim-CEO position. Over time it became clear that Steve was better at Apple and focused on PIXAR when it came to steering the system for the best contract deals possible--the 50/50 with Disney on Toy Story II being one of many results.

Re:Jobs will never be a successful number 2.

[somethinghollow]

Ack. Now I have to find that damned article.

(It's 9:25 PM when I started my search)

Okay, I got lucky. It only took 60 seconds.

The article is: 500 Days at the Helm: The Rise and Fall of Gil Amelio. It's a good read and where I got my impression of Job's "usurping" Gil Amelio.

The Mouse

[Nom du Keyboard]

Steve Jobs at the next MacWorld wearing mouse ears. Now there's a sight I can't wait to see.

Re:I hope not....

[squidguy]

Then be careful wearing a red shirt when visiting Orlando!

stock

[squarefish]

so, assuming this is true, which stock would be the best investment at this time? pixr is close to $60 right now and dis is about $25. thanks!

Re:stock

[InfoVore]

which stock would be the best investment at this time?

Neither. Remember the old adage:

If you add a cup of wine to a barrel of garbage, you have a barrel of garbage. If you add a cup of garbage to a barrel of wine, you have a barrel of garbage.

Re:stock

[Onan]

This really isn't the place to ask for investment advice. But speaking very generally, there's a tendency for the stock of the acquirer to see a slight dip and the stock of the acquiree to see a small spike.

But really, that's only a vague tendency. You shouldn't invest real money without investigating the particular companies and situation in more detail.

Re:stock

[trollable]

PIXR, no?

Re:stock

[Anonymous Coward]

Amm... Now is the time to buy options. If it's one thing sudden mergers cause is volatility. Buying a call/put spread will increase your chances of... err... well... making money no matter which way the sudden stock price spike will go. You can `easily' double (or quadruple) money that way (then again, you may end up losing all the money if... the stock just stays flat---but how likely is that???) I'd imagine during the merger week/month, one of the corps will see at least a 5% price spike... but that's just me.

(wow, did I just give out a major investment ``secret''?)

Wait..

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it means Steve Jobs will appear in cartoons?

Re:Wait..

[Farmer Tim]

Does it means Steve Jobs will appear in cartoons?

No, but it means Mickey's pants will have only one button.

The Steve Jobs Factor

[nuckin futs]

Steve Jobs is known to be a control freak. He controls Apple and Pixar. Unless he's able to control Disney if and when they merge, I don't think he'll be selling.

Re:The Steve Jobs Factor

[Carthag]

As far as I've been told, he's pretty hands off with Pixar.

Re:The Steve Jobs Factor

[nuckin futs]

hands off, but he controls 50.1% of the company, which means he has the power to veto anything he doesn't like. it just happens that he likes the stuff they're producing.

Re:The Steve Jobs Factor

[rjung2k]

Jobs is hands-off the creative side of Pixar, but I believe he's very hands-on the business side of things.

If Jobs does join Disney, I doubt he'll be content with anything less than running the whole show. Not that he'd do everything, but I can imagine him finding idealistic, qualified folks to run each part of the empire and giving them the power to improve Disney from the sucktastic, $$$-oriented joke it's become.

Re:The Steve Jobs Factor

[Carthag]

We can only hope. Jobs seems to have a knack for finding qualified people. If he were to run Disney, I am sure they'd turn around their last what, 20 years? of ferschlugginer dreck

Awesome!

[ChePibe]

Now Disney movies will be sleek, easy to interface with, and pleasing to the eye! Disney toys will contain no small parts that could be snapped off! Disney rides will be stable, boring, and free of malfunction!

Sadly, Disney's video games will now suck - they'll all be stupid puzzles. And all Disney characters will be required to ditch the fancy costumes and go with oversized jeans and black turtlenecks.

That's the business world for you. It's all about compromise...

Re:Awesome!

[edbulldog]

That's the business world for you. It's all about compromise...

Hey... at least is not all about developers, developers, developers ;P

Re:Awesome!

[CptNerd]

Now Disney movies will be sleek, easy to interface with, and pleasing to the eye! Disney toys will contain no small parts that could be snapped off! Disney rides will be stable, boring, and free of malfunction!

Unfortunately it also means that no one will go to see Disney movies anymore, except for a vocal minority that claim the movies are better than any others. And the majority of critics will pan the new Disney movies as being too expensive and obviously inferior to the more popular studios' movies.

Re:Awesome!

[MORB]

"Sadly, Disney's video games will now suck - they'll all be stupid puzzles."

Huh ?
They're already like this.
 
/Had the lack of pleasure of working on three winnie the pooh video games

Re:Awesome!

[IntergalacticWalrus]

"Sadly, Disney's video games will now suck - they'll all be stupid puzzles."

No, some of them will be pro image editing apps.

The mouse!

[everphilski]

http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/19/news/companies/dis ney_steve/

Ask a question if you don't mind

[Adult film producer]

What makes all these stories about Steve Jobs worthy of being on the front page of a webpage for geeks/nerds? "News for nerds, Stuff that matters," is the slogan right? Whether or not steve jobs sells his pixar stock or eats sushi for breakfast is irrelevant to any discussion here.

Re:Ask a question if you don't mind

[Em Adespoton]

The answer is simple: Geeks/Nerds like stories about other geeks/nerds who made it big. I bet there are a lot of people on here who would love to be part of the next Jobs/Woz team.

Of course, I think we should have more Woz/Avi/etc. news articles, but guys like them don't enjoy being in the limelight like Jobs does.

Re:Ask a question if you don't mind

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

What makes all these stories about Steve Jobs worthy of being on the front page of a webpage for geeks/nerds?

Yeah articles about a guy who runs one of the biggest and most innovative computer companies and one of the most well regarded computer graphics production houses has nothing to do with nerds. Computers and what happens with computer graphics and their affect upon the computer industry is more of a jock thing. I'm sure they're covering it on ESPN right now.

Re:Ask a question if you don't mind

[JohnnyLocust]

One of my favorite pictures of all time:
Jobs and Wozniak with a Blue Box
http://www.paulgraham.com/bluebox.html

Re:Ask a question if you don't mind

[feranick]

Envy?

Re:Ask a question if you don't mind

[Anonymous Coward]

He's living our (my) dream..

1. Starts a business in a garage.

2. Business is a great success.

3. Looses 1st business/love and starts another (or 2)..

4. Makes triumphant comeback at business he started, prodigal son and all that...

5. Leads 2 businesses into media darlings that make products he loves, and is genuinely excited about. (Have you seen him talk about things he loves, when he's on a roll? Like a kid, he loves things like iLife and the imac..)

6. Now finds self in position to take over a company that he (probably) thinks has lost it's way, that some call evil, that at one time he admired...

Livin' the dream.

Re:Ask a question if you don't mind

[freeweed]

Grandparent's just jealous because Jobs makes more money creating children's entertainment than he would Producing Adult Films.

Maybe it's actually Ron Jeremy posting incognito?

You can't buy talent

[nagora]

Disney can buy Pixar and have the rights to their back-catalogue to rape in the straight-to-video market alongside "Disney Buggers Winnie the Pooh Yet Again" and the rest of their tat but the last 15 years has shown that Disney can't recruit talent capable of making a good movie.

So, if Disney buys Pixar and Lassiter etc. walk out and start their own company Disney ends up with nothing more than a brand which they'll screw up as badly as they have their own.

TWW

Re:You can't buy talent

[91degrees]

So, if Disney buys Pixar and Lassiter etc. walk out and start their own company Disney ends up with nothing more than a brand which they'll screw up as badly as they have their own.

True, but from the summary, it looks like they might be buying Steve Jobs. He's pretty good at giving people what they want. Something that Disney has been struggling with recently.

Re:You can't buy talent

[FooAtWFU]

Didn't Pixar leave Disney not that long ago? Hmm. "If you can't keep their business, buy them out", is it?

Re:You can't buy talent

[WebGangsta]

So, if Disney buys Pixar and Lassiter etc. walk out and start their own company Disney ends up with nothing more than a brand which they'll screw up as badly as they have their own.

Iger and Jobs aren't idiots. As mentioned in this morning's LATimes, it appears that they've already looked into Lassiter's role as head of animation. Disney has good animators and staff currently, but they need a visionary and leader like Lassiter to bring it all together. If he's given free reign (and with Jobs on the Board of Directors, he may very well get what he needs), we may see a new golden age of Disney animation.

Re:You can't buy talent

[nizo]

Disney already owns the rights to pretty much all of Pixar's works:

Disney noted in its statement that it owns rights to all the Pixar movies, as well as two more animated features yet to be delivered -- "The Incredibles" due this year and "Cars", expected in 2005.

Disney will distribute those two films with Pixar getting its share of the profits. In addition, Disney probably will be able to make the sequels to all the Pixar films made under the current agreement, paying Pixar only limited royalties.

(Taken from here)

Now if Pixar (as it is today) is in charge of later remakes they will actually be good; I shudder to think how Disney would do making sequals to The Incredibles or even Finding Nemo. This would be a good thing as long as Disney doesn't destroy Pixar.

Re:You can't buy talent

[nagora]

we may see a new golden age of Disney animation.

Who needs "may"? We have a golden age of Pixar animation today. Disney can drop dead and I (and the ghost of Ub Iwerks) won't shed any tears.

TWW

Re:You can't buy talent

[bcrowell]

So, if Disney buys Pixar and Lassiter etc. walk out and start their own company Disney ends up with nothing more than a brand which they'll screw up as badly as they have their own.
It's not trivial to build up the rest of the infrastructure that Pixar has done. For instance, my sister has worked on hair simulation for Pixar -- yes, doing animated hair is extremely difficult. The best creative minds working for Pixar can't just secede and start producing their own movies using OSS on a homebewed Linux cluster. A lot of the state of the art is secret and proprietary.

Re:You can't buy talent

[nagora]

The best creative minds working for Pixar can't just secede and start producing their own movies using OSS on a homebewed Linux cluster. A lot of the state of the art is secret and proprietary.

If you think Pixar's success is because of the technical side then you're not a movie fan. The writing and directing are the keys, not the hair animation, which IS mind-blowingly hard and well done but isn't the reason people go to see a movie (for example: Toy Story which had no hair since it couldn't be done then).

Pixar have the best track record for script and direction of any film studio its age in history at this point; someone would give those guys hardware and software that would be "good enough" (say all that stuff with "Dreamworks" printed on the side that was just sold off) and I'd go see their next movie because I'd know it would be funny and interesting, even if it was aimed mainly at children.

Disney needs Pixar, but Disney has nothing to offer the Pixar staff that they don't already have, or couldn't get somewhere else.

Disney have the Microsoft problem: their reputation will put off anyone who takes pride in their work, and no one could look at a Disney Shop with pride. Talent can always find patrons, especially when it has a history of making big bucks; why work for a quantity-not-quality outfit like Disney if you have the choice?

TWW

Re:You can't buy talent

[16K Ram Pack]

Completely agree.

Most kids don't even know that it's CG. Particularly as Pixar don't go shouting around that the movie is CG.

When I've seen documentaries or listened to Pixar commentaries, you realise just how much passion they have for telling stories, and how they seem to spend a phenomenal amount of time on the story before even getting down to the animation.

I wish that more movie studios did this, instead of getting a concept, adding a star name, and botching together a script that runs out of steam.

Re:You can't buy talent

[cens0r]

Disney already owns the rights to Pixar's back cataloug. That's part of the reason Pixar is having trouble finding a new distributer to replace Disney. If you sign on to distribute Pixar's next film, there is nothing stopping Disney from releasing Finding Nemo 3 or Toy Story 7 at the same time. That cuts into your bottom line quite a bit.

Re:You can't buy talent

[nagora]

Disney already owns the rights to Pixar's back cataloug

That's true; I should have said that's all Disney would be left with - they'd have no new material, though, apart from the dreck they make themselves.

there is nothing stopping Disney from releasing Finding Nemo 3 or Toy Story 7 at the same time. That cuts into your bottom line quite a bit.

Would it? Those would probably go straight to DVD and be seen by no one over the age of 3. Look at Jungle Book 2: did it cut into sales of the original on DVD? I doubt it; it was just released and forgotten in the space of a couple of days.

TWW

Yeah, but will Disney destroy Pixar?

[jupiter_ganymede]

Pixar succeeds because they have the freedom to do things differently. I could see Pixar loosing that freedom and falling into the same trap Disney's animation branch did. Unless they could remain somewhat autonomous I can't see them continuing to innovate under Disney's control.

Re:Yeah, but will Disney destroy Pixar?

[WebGangsta]

Pixar succeeds because they have the freedom to do things differently

The LATimes article released this morning is the only one to mention that John Lassiter - major Pixar honcho, creative driving force, etc -- would head up the entire Disney animation division as part of the deal.

My guess is that Disney knows that Lassiter is the heart and soul of Pixar (as does Jobs), and they want to ensure that Pixar remains as devoted to creating quality work as possible along with reinvigorating the Disney animation arm as well with a new regime that Eisner so sadly dismantled over the years. As long as Pixar remains independent with Lassiter majorly involved in the merger-end-result, then all will be good in the end.

Re:Yeah, but will Disney destroy Pixar?

[nizo]

This could actually be really good news then; Disney already owns the rights to pretty much all of the Pixar stuff, so now any sequals (The Incredibles comes to mind) would actually be good!

Re:Yeah, but will Disney destroy Pixar?

[valtoid]

The precedent to look to in this situation is Miramax. A decade or so after their deal with Disney the Weinstein brothers are out and the shell that used to be Miramax remains. Miramax films were good quality films when they had autonomy and control. At the end of their tenuous relationship the infighting between the 2 orgs was about development and marketing budgets. The same can happen to Pixar if they are not careful.

This Is Why Mac Hardware Doesn't Matter Anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

The huge growth Apple has enjoyed is all because of the iPod/iTMS/media side of the company.

I would not be surprised if the Mac hardware using Intel chips is nothing more than a way for Apple to ease out of the computer hardware market over the next couple of years. Much better than outright dumping Apple computer hardware which would cause massive problems for the stock.

No matter what silly claims Jobs is making about the new Intel based Macs, he has to know that a luxury x86 OEM is the last thing the computing world is looking to for right now.

Re:This Is Why Mac Hardware Doesn't Matter Anymore

[Phroggy]

I would not be surprised if the Mac hardware using Intel chips is nothing more than a way for Apple to ease out of the computer hardware market over the next couple of years.

I believe you're mistaken. Switching to Intel hardware allows Apple to gain hardware marketshare, by being able to produce more powerful Macs for less money, and by being able to meet demand instead of having major shortages every time they announce a new product. Raw CPU speed for a reasonable price has been a major problem for Apple; their high-end $3000 machines perform nicely but the low-end consumer stuff (that people like me can actually afford) crawls, and once they've fixed this problem, I think Mac sales will really take off.

Re:This Is Why Mac Hardware Doesn't Matter Anymore

[Overly Critical Guy]

Wow, nobody's heard that prediction before. Apple--proudly going out of business for 30 years.

Re:This Is Why Mac Hardware Doesn't Matter Anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen. How many times have I heard this before?

Just because you're cheap and use cut-rate products doesn't mean the rest of us are. Computers are more than just hardware boxes, they are in our living rooms, prominently displayed.

Re:This Is Why Mac Hardware Doesn't Matter Anymore

[laffer1]

You might be mistaken. Switching to intel HURT NeXT. Apple == NeXT since they are now on intel using OSX (NEXTSTEP), etc. History is repeating itself. This might explain if it was a bad idea the first time or simply bad timing like the apple newton.

Re:This Is Why Mac Hardware Doesn't Matter Anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

> a luxury x86 OEM is the last thing the computing world is looking to for right now.

Are you sure? Look at Dell's new XPS line -- they clearly think otherwise. (The XPS line is a nicer-design, better-performance line that is trying to move Dell away from the low-margin basic PC.)

Re:This Is Why Mac Hardware Doesn't Matter Anymore

[PFI_Optix]

...once they've fixed this problem, I think Mac sales will really take off.

There's still the little problem of software. I know there's a lot of Mac software out there, but it's nothing like the PC market. The average user doesn't really get that, but a lot of salesmen do. Salesmen don't want to be the guys who sold a useless computer, so they'll push PCs to be safe.

IMO, we'd all be better off if Apple would release a fully x86-compatible version of OSX that supported a wide range of apps and get out of the hardware biz, even though we all know they won't.

Re:This Is Why Mac Hardware Doesn't Matter Anymore

[Phroggy]

Porting NeXTStep to Intel didn't hurt NeXT. Remember, NeXT also decided to stop making their own hardware, and just sell their OS independently. Apple isn't doing that.

Re:This Is Why Mac Hardware Doesn't Matter Anymore

[Phroggy]

There's still the little problem of software. I know there's a lot of Mac software out there, but it's nothing like the PC market. The average user doesn't really get that, but a lot of salesmen do. Salesmen don't want to be the guys who sold a useless computer, so they'll push PCs to be safe.

Switching to Intel causes a minor problem in the short term (legacy PPC apps run slowly or not at all on new Intel-based Macs), but helps greatly in the long term (developers can stick to writing for x86 without worrying about supporting PPC). This is a particularly big deal for game developers.

Also, in addition to much better performance from apps like VirtualPC, compatibility environments like WINE are now possible on Mac OS X, which should allow Mac users to run Windows software.

Pedo-MAC

[Anonymous Coward]

New audience, new product line.

So-called "synergy" never works

[OnTheWay]

We'll all lose out if Jobs sells Pixar to Disney. Here's one reason: I heard Albert Brooks talking about his new movie "Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World" on the radio. Sony was his original distributor, but they wanted him to avoid using the word "Muslim" in the title, probably because they didn't want to offend any potential buyers of their cameras, TVs, AV Gear, etc. So he took his film to another distributor, one who didn't have to worry about TV/camera sales etc. So much for "synergy" - just shows the bigger you are, the *less* you can do, 'cause you're always worried about how one subsidiary's actions will affect the biz of all the other subsidiaries. That's what's going to happen to Pixar if Disney englobs it. "Toe the line and cover all of our sizeable asses!"

Re:So-called "synergy" never works

[mike77]

cause you're always worried about how one subsidiary's actions will affect the biz of all the other subsidiaries

hasn't stopped SONY yet!

Re:So-called "synergy" never works

[anaesthetica]

Yes, and Pixar is well known for it's films featuring biting and incisive political and social commentary. Disney will surely bowdlerize Pixar's critiques of social alienation caused by the consumerist hysteria openly inculcated by the "managed democracy" of our hyper-liberal capitalist world system.

Not gonna happen.

[DysenteryInTheRanks]

Guess what -- If this was going to happen, no one would be leaking it.

Now, to figure out what is really going on, think about who is incentivized to leak. Disney? Well, considering how incredibly weak this makes them look, and considering how expensive their supposed acquisition of Pixar just got due to this news breaking, I think we can safely rule them out.

On the other hand, Pixar in general and Steve Jobs in particular come off looking pretty great. There are all kinds of inflated numbers being thrown around about how much Disney will pay, which helps Pixar win concessions from other suitors who want to distribute its movies. Also, Jobs is practically crowned new king of Disney in these stories, which helps his public image.

Most importantly, all this chatter brings Pixar even with or above Disney in the public mind in terms of brand quality. If Disney is offering so much, Pixar must be their creative equal or superior, the thinking goes.

Only slightly less important, any big Pixar executives of shareholders (*cough*Jobs*cough*) just saw their stock options get even more valuable.

So by a wide margin, this leak appears to benefit Pixar and hurt Disney.

I wonder if Steve Jobs has the sort of media access and pull to do a leak like this? /sarcasm.

Re:Not gonna happen.

[TheRaven64]

Another reason I think this is unlikely is that it would kill iTMS for video production. Music producers are already wary of its near monopoly position, and video producers are likely to be quite careful about allowing Apple to gain a distribution monopoly. If they secured a very good deal with Disney then this would make other studios very very cautious about entering into any kind of deal with Apple.

Re:Not gonna happen.

[DysenteryInTheRanks]

++Good point. When Pixar was just a cool little company, it gave Jobs cred with the media companies, since he knew the value of copyright. If he becomes a Disney hotshot (even just on their board), suddenly he looks like a threat.

Re:Not gonna happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most importantly, all this chatter brings Pixar even with or above Disney in the public mind in terms of brand quality. If Disney is offering so much, Pixar must be their creative equal or superior, the thinking goes."

Um - I think the thinking already went that way, actually. Name something worthwhile out of Disney in the last few years that WASN'T from Pixar? AFAIK the last gasp of decent moviemaking at Disney was The Lion King, and even before that there were signs of decline. IMO Beauty and the Beast was the high point for Disney after the Little Mermaid shocked everyone who thought they were dead - they backslid again and only Pixar has saved them.

Re:Not gonna happen.

[clifyt]

"suddenly he looks like a threat."

???

Haven't you been paying attention...this is already what happened.

He had some streetcred and two little companies that folks liked -- but no real control over the market from either (i.e., Apple 2.5% market share and Pixar's endentured servitude to Disney) and thought they'd give him a shot just so they can claim they tried and it failed.

And Jobs outperforms everyones expectations on both sides and scaring the living shit out of content providers -- they've already got the momentum and to deny content to them would be suicide at this point. The video store was practically nothing at first and other than the Pixar shorts I had no interest in it -- but again, the momentum was gained where as to not get on board was to look like you were 'old media' -- even if you knew doing so would be your eventual demise.

Jobs has been a real threat to this industry for a few years now and the industry knows it. This isn't reality distortion logic, ask Sony why they wouldn't get on board with Japan or Oz's iTMS for so long (and finally relented to the exact same terms he had offered even the little guys with a dozen albums on their lable).

Personally, if I were working for an opposing company (and I gotta check to see if I am these days...I never pay attention to the parent companies :-) I'd actually be less worried if he were endentured to a giant media company needing stability in a real sort of way (i.e., he could easily sell Pixar for $$$ to someone and it wouldn't hurt the brand, but selling $6B in stock is a sign of weakness and would KILL its value -- if he sells for a stock trade, he's stuck for some years).

Disney + Pixar = Bad combination

[MonkeyCookie]

Disney has been making a lot of crap recently. I predict that the acquisition of Pixar by Disney will eventually cause Pixar's very enjoyable movies to turn to crap as well.

I may take a few years to remove all the originality and cleverness from Pixar, but I'm sure Disney is up to the task.

Re:Disney + Pixar = Bad combination

[mozumder]

Well, there's only ONE reason Pixar has been so good: Producer/Director/Writer John Lasseter.

If the merger causes Lasseter to leave, then yah, they're screwed. They should put him on the new board, instead of Jobs.

Re:Disney + Pixar = Bad combination

[Hitokiri]

Pixar is so much more than just John Lasseter.

The last film Lasseter wrote and directed was Toy Story 2.

Brad Bird wrote and directed The Incredibles
Andrew Staton wrote and directed Finding Nemo
Peter Docter directed and Andrew Staton wrote Monsters Inc.

While Lasseter served as Executive Producer on these films that role is mainly production management and not creative. I'm not saying Lasseter isn't talented, he is. Its just that Pixar's success is the union of great management, R&D and arists.

For some reason, my response is just

[Anonymous Coward]

"I really, really wonder what Roy Disney thinks of this"

Jobs will make changes at Disney

[digitaldc]

Speculation has also arisen that such a deal may lead to Steve Jobs earning a position on Disney's board of directors. He would likely become Disney's largest individual share holder.

It was also rumoured that Steve Jobs' first move as Disney boardmember is convincing the rest of the board to re-edit 'Snow White' so that the Queen feeds Snow White a poison banana.

Re:Jobs will make changes at Disney

[Farmer Tim]

...the Queen feeds Snow White a poison banana.

I think I saw that version in the adult video section...and you thought 7-up was a soft drink!

Jobs will be running Disney in a year

[Enrique1218]

Reality distortion field says it all. Those board members won't have a chance.

Jobs To Take Eisner Job?

[randomErr]

I can see this happening. Jobs has a much better name in both the consumer and business world. Jobs has several companies that have been producing original products(iPod, Airport, The Incredibles) and making money(Apple and Pixar of course) for years.

Can Eisner say that (Home on the Range, Beauty and the Beast Princess Collect 2 Special Edition, Disney Land)?

Re:Jobs To Take Eisner Job?

[iroll]

No, because Eisner was fired last year. Wiki

Re:Jobs To Take Eisner Job?

[BigCheese]

Yea, but how do you get the nasty Eisner smell out of everything? I don't think Lysol will do it.

I see no mention of the fact they never liked each

[SmallFurryCreature]

I see no mention of the fact they never liked each other. For a long time it seems that Pixar was doing all it could to get out of the deal it had with Disney to produce 5 movies. Now that it is close to get its freedom all of a sudden they want to be bought up?

Has disney made the u-turn or has pixar? Pixar succeeded because it was not disney, what makes the people think that it will not die a quick death when smothered by the disney giant?

I think it depends on access

[Dark Paladin]

If you're Steve Jobs, you have to be thinking "OK, if I own 5% of Disney, what will that get me?"

Better opportunities for Pixar movies and resources? Check.
Better control to keep Disney from making Toy Story 3 horrible? Check.

But more importantly, will this really give him what he really wants at this stage: media control. I think his goal now is to set up iTunes and Apple as the next Sony - make itself the "one stop portal" for all things music/tv/movie, so no matter what you want, you click iTunes and for over that credit card number to get it, then play it on your iPod/computer/Apple TV (or whatever they may call the rumored "Plasma TV's with OS X").

In this way, Apple can truly become the next Sony, including a strong movie/music lineup in its back pocket.

On the other hand, will 5% of Disney really get him there? It's a hard question. It will get him influence, but my bet it that he would want control of the whole pie so he can say "We *will* be putting these movies on iTunes at $9 a pop, and if you don't like it, go form your own animation studio".

It might also buy more problems with Sony, which has its own music/movie center. Right now, Apple is independant enough that it can go to Sony and say "Look, let us sell your music and movies on iTunes - we're not your competitor in the movie space". But if Jobs teams with Apple, how long until Sony decides its better to cut off its own nose rather than allow their entertainment rival to make money off of their products?

He may hold out for a little more, as in "5% of stock plus extra voting powers", and some control over the technology (which would let him walk into the software development area and say "See this stuff? Make it Mac compatible before the next version of 'Disney Horse Adventures' ship.").

I'm betting he won't take it - he's got what he wants on both sides of technology and entertainment, he has control, and it keeps him just independant enough where he can work with either side.

Of course, that's just my opinion - I could be wrong.

Re:I think it depends on access

[Anonymous Coward]

But if Jobs teams with Apple, how long until Sony decides its better to cut off its own nose rather than allow their entertainment rival to make money off of their products?

Too late...Jobs is *already* in Apple. Sony's nose must be bleeding bigtime by now....

Re:I think it depends on access

[Sentry21]

If you're Steve Jobs, you have to be thinking "OK, if I own 5% of Disney, what will that get me?"

Actually, with Disney's market cap at about $49bn, I guess he'd own more like 15% of disney (or at least, 15% of the outstanding common shares). Not that that would tip the scales entirely, but it would put him in a pretty significant position to effect inertia on the company.

Re:I think it depends on access

[iluvcapra]

"We *will* be putting these movies on iTunes at $9 a pop, and if you don't like it, go form your own animation studio"

Interesting. We would note at this point that this was the general attitude of all movie studios (s/iTunes/Movie Theaters) until the Paramount Decrees of 1948. In that case, the supreme court decided that when movie studios and their theater chains were vertically-integrated, it violated the existing anti-trust laws and that the studios would have to sever themselves from their exhibitors.

In '48, there were several movie studios each aligned with their chains, either owning them (like Paramount) or being owned by them (in the case of MGM). The studios would routinely block-book their theaters with crap (this has alot to do with where "B" movies come from), so that an independent film studio/producer couldn't get their films in. I am somewhat doubtful that our presently-constituted supreme court would make a similar ruling no matter what happens over the next decade (the studio-theater system existed for 50 years before the Paramount decrees).

The point is, though, that it did happen eventually, and that vertically-integrated entertainment companies, involved in industrial media production, can be expected to become exclusionary. At some point the corporations that own their distribution channel start making bad decisions about content, just to save the system they have; witness Sony's continual incompentence at "killing" the iPod, on account of their need to protect their recording label from piracy.

Also, consider this fact in the context of MS recently cutting itself out of the management of MSNBC. They took this step possibly to give themselves a free hand when developing new DRM technologies (they don't have to worry about NBC being cool with their tech, after all, they destribute thru iTunes.)

Re:I think it depends on access

[Shag]

Well... hmm.

AAPL : $76.08 per share, market cap $64.13 billion
SNE: $42.30 per share, market cap $42.13 billion

Yep, it must've already happened or something. ;)

Re:I think it depends on access

[mikeisme77]

I wouldn't say that's because of Apple though... I think Sony has the problem that their consumer electronics division has been faltering lately and they install rootkits in music that earn them months of bad press. For a brand, such as Sony, that in recent years has run off of marketing hype alone because they make somewhat inferior products; bad press is a very bad thing.

On Balance, Not a Nice Idea

[ewhac]

The idea of Steve Jobs as the biggest single shareholder on Disney's board is certainly entertaining to think about but, on the whole, I think Pixar is better off remaining an independent animation studio (and, to a lesser extent, graphics research company).

Among people in the entertainment industry, Disney is not well thought of. They have a reputation of being the most ruthless and shameless exploiters of talent. They are one of the loudest and most shrill voices in support of pervasive media copy protection (DRM), and have been instrumental in ram-rodding regressive copyright statutes through Congress. Frankly, I can't see Jobs doing much to change that. (It's also not clear that's something he would want to change.)

Schwab

ohhhh!

[Anonymous Coward]

The "imouse"

*sorry, had too*

Re:ohhhh!

[Farmer Tim]

Its called the "Mighty Mouse". Oh, wait, that was a Harveytoon...

Rise Lord Jobs, RISE!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch.php?v=Y3xKhLlhzfM

http://wiredblogs.tripod.com/cultofmac/index.blog? entry_id=1264454

Reality Distortion Field Ride...

[Ditch125]

will replace Space Mountain as the most popular ride in the parks. Will Mickey have to wear a black turtleneck??

Yes, but...

[truthsearch]

... does it run Linux?

George Lucas

[Anonymous Coward]

And to think George Lucas sold Pixar to Jobs for US$ 10 million (asked price was US$ 20 million, but apparently Lucas needed to settle a divorce case and needed money fast, and he didn't want to sell ILM.)

No thanks

[bobetov]

Great, let's join something I love (Pixar) and something I admire (Apple) with something I despise (10 points for guessing that's Disney).

Pixar has done the unbelievable and released *only* great movies. They are the heir of the old, beloved, plowed-into-a-wall-and-burned-to-the-ground Disney animation studios.

Much as I'd love to see Disney stop sucking so hard, I'd rather they just *die* than take down Pixar with them.

Good thing I'm on the boards of both companies, so my opinion on this matter will be influential... or something.

Re:No thanks

[sharrestom]

Sooner or later, Pixar will stumble. Not because of quality, but, because there are now some very good animation studios on the rise. The pie is only so big, and there are only a few good slots in the year to make bank on animation. Then again, taking the Disney crap out of the equation might be worth it.

Re:No thanks

[cowscows]

I disagree. Pixar has not had all of their successes just because their movies are animation. They've done well because their movies are good. The wow-factor of computer animation isn't much of a big deal anymore. It's been 10 years since Toy Story, we're not blown away by that anymore.

There are plenty of weeks in a year, time enough for a good number of movies to be released and do well. Unless 100 new animation studios open up this year and they all produce quality movies, pixar won't be crowded out. Pixar produces films at a rate of less than one per year. At that rate, they should not have any problem consistently finding good stories and producing quality movies, as long as their philosophy stays the same. Add in the brand recognition that pixar has made for itself, and they've got nothing to worry about.

Pixar is the only one who can screw things up for themselves. The only thing that can screw up the sort of the value of the Pixar name is them releasing crap. Or a giant meteor hitting the earth and destroying civilization. That would do it too.

Re:No thanks

[ErikZ]

Only a few good slots a year?

I'm sure parents would love there to be one great animated movie a month. Something both they and the whole family could enjoy. How long does it take to put out an animated movie? 1 to 2 years?

The pie is far larger than you believe.

Teh MOUSE is teh EVIL!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Free "Song of the South" and "Der Fuehrer's Face"!!

One Button?

[RingDev]

But Apple mice only have 1 button, so maybe he could wear a 1 ear hat ;)

-Rick

Steve Jobs != Pixar

[vasqzr]

Jobs came up with the original plan to start Pixar, and the money to do it, but he has basically no creative control there. It's run by other people.

Re:Steve Jobs != Pixar

[MetaPhyzx]

Er, you mean came up with the money to BUY Pixar. Pixar was a Lucasfilm joint before that... Jobs isn't as hands on there as he is with Apple, but they do share a similar office culture.

Re:Steve Jobs != Pixar

[mh101]

Actually, Pixar was started by George Lucas/Lucasfilm, and Jobs just bought it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixar#Early_history

The implications of self-dealing...

[jordandeamattson]

Hi All -

What the speculation around the impact of Jobs selling Pixar to Disney and joining the Disney board (we would likely only settle for chairperson) falls to address, is the impact of restrictions on self-dealing, etc., on what a board member can do in this post-Enron and SOX era.

If Warren Buffet can be criticized for being on the Disney board and called a "non-independent" Director because Diary Queen (which BRKB owns) purchases a few million in Coca Cola syrup a year, imagine the furor that Jobs pushing a "good deal" for iTunes would face.

I actually believe that a sale to Disney followed by Jobs joining the board would make things more difficult and would limit his ability to get the famous "Apple terms" for contnet, et al.

One way around this, would be for the terms of the deal with respect to iTunes content to be hammered out now, and announced as part of the acquisition deal.

Yours,

Jordan

if this goes through...

[Thud457]

how does this effect Google's plans for world dominance?

Taking a Disney board seat is unwise

[__aadkms7016]

If Pixar is sold to Disney, Steve should consider closing the door on that chapter of his life and moving on. The history of maverick outsiders taking a seat on the board of companies like Disney is that the maverick gets shunned until he throws up his hands and leaves. Yes, having such a big investment in Disney with no board seat is a dangerous thing for him ... but maybe the best way to solve that problem is for him to diversify out of his Disney holdings as quickly as legally permitted.

Is it really that big of a deal?

[NiteShaed]

From reading some of the comments on this story you'd think the headline read "Steve Jobs Buys Disney Outright Using Personal Check". Granted having %5 of Disney is nothing to sneeze at, but he's hardly becoming the unchallenged dominant force in the company.....

Re:Is it really that big of a deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, 5% IS a big deal. The current largest single shareholder (ironically, Michael Eisner) holds just over 1%. The largest group shareholder has little over 4%. In short, this deal would make him an unchallenged dominant force in the company.

Re:Is it really that big of a deal?

[NiteShaed]

No, not unchallenged. No single shareholder could challenge him on their own, but he still would have to contend with the fact that the other 95% of shareholders may or may not agree with him. I'm not suggesting it's not significant, but it's a long way from absolute. IIRC, when Eisner was fighting for his position on the board, around 45% of shareholders where aligned against him (instigated by Roy Disney among others).

Seriously, F--- that idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Pixar creates original and compelling content. Disney makes shit and shit. Disney hasn't got the slight clue what content is anymore. Look at the large number of direct to Video crap disney produces the last 5 years. Pixar can kick disney's ass for 1 simple reason. Pixar has talent and knows how to make compelling content. For disney to turn around, they have to completely fire all their retard upper and middle management and bring in new blood.

Actually, it's been longer than that!

[frank_adrian314159]

You know it's all been downhill since this classic was released!

Re:I see no mention of the fact they never liked e

[iroll]

The hope lies in the fact that Eisner is out.

5 yrs ago Eisner was Disney; it'd be better to say Eisner and Pixar didn't get along. With Eisner out, Disney might get a chance to get a new corporate culture.

Actual Accounting Requires Knowledge

[KagatoLNX]

Disney starts at 60 billion of assets - 60 billion of shareholder ownership.
Pixar starts at 7 billion of assets - 7 billion of shareholder ownership.

Disney gives the Pixar shareholders 7 billion of assets (cash) for their 7 billion of assets (Pixar).

Now Pixar shareholders have 7 billion of assets (cash) and Disney has 60 billion of assets (60 billion - 7 billion in cash + 7 billion in Pixar).

In other words, no money disappeared, assets just changed hands. As usual, this is all very subjective in terms of profit and loss, since the valuation of assets (the value of Pixar) can be very tricky, even if you aren't trying to overvalue yourself.

You essentially miss that they are buying Pixar from its shareholders. It doesn't own itself.

The reality of this particular trade is more complicated, since some of the payment will be in Disney shares, not cash, but the balance is the same.

iTunes barcode

[JohnnyLocust]

Hmmmm.... purchase tickets to Disneyland from iTunes, and use an iPod to display the barcode for entrance. à la http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/18/165423 2

Re:iTunes barcode

[FateXtreme]

Now isn't that the truth. Next thing we know its going to the UPS Circle barcode, in color!

RIP: Pixar

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as someone who worked for a company that Disney took over, this would be the first nail in the coffin for Pixar. Disney's management style, promotion system, style of communication (phone/fax vs. email/im), and philosophy regarding creative control and workforce automony are directly imcompatible with how artists work. I would guess department heads and leads would get some cash to stay 1 - 2 years, everyone else will bail after 6 months once the dark cloud of The Mouse descends upon them.

To Infinity, And Beyond!

suckage?

[taybin]

I hope this wouldn't mean that Pixar movies would start to suck like Disney and Dreamworks movies.

New pavillion in EPCOT

[feranick]

A new pavillion in EPCOT center (Walt Disney World) sponsored by Apple. Big showcase of Apple hardware+software while showing Pixar material. Fits perfectly

Obligatory cryogenics post

[ettlz]

Steve Jobs just wants to have himself frozen. I guess it's the only way to cheat Gates of the last laugh.

(And before the humourless OCD-blighted flametards point it out, yes, I do appreciate it's an urban legend.)

Jobs + Roy Disney

[EccentricAnomaly]

Steve jobs is great friends with Roy Disney, Jr. who has been a dissident against the Disney board for years (even suing them). I wonder if his stakes plus Jobs post-merge stake would be enough for them to take over... Or if their combined stake would be enough to help Apple buy Disney :) One thing's for sure, if jobs gets control over Disney, Disneyland is going to be insanely great. Can you imagine what the RDF would do? You'll shit your pants. ...but seriously, Jobs in control of Disney would put Apple in a great place for the upcoming iPod vs. Sony battle.

One button mouse

[spezz]

I'm sure there's a "one button mouse" joke in here someplace, but it's late in the day and my clever has been turned down to mute.

Re:One button mouse

[Anonymous Coward]

Minnie has been a "one-button" mouse for over seventy years.

Wow. I can't believe I said that.

a link

[Quadraginta]

Saw this after I posted. Hmmm...so Eisner is stepping down this year, and two Disney board members including Roy have already openly said they want Jobs as CEO...

Re:a link

[jordandeamattson]

Hi -

Eisner has already stepped down with Bob Iger running the show these days. Roy Disney is no longer on the Disney BOD.

Yours,

Jordan

Huh?

[shoptroll]

Can't beat 'em, take 'em over? I thought Pixar severed ties with Disney after The Incredibles?

Re:Huh?

[mikeisme77]

Nope, that's what I had thought too because of all the press about the impending demise of their alliance. However, you'll note that the latest Pixar movie, Cars is being released by Disney.

same way "NeXT bought Apple"

[peter303]

In 1996 Apple ostensibly acquired NeXT, but in reality it was the reverse. Jobs became a large shareholder again (he had sold all but one share after he was fired from Apple). The Jobs gang took back control from Apple.

Ten years later Jobs could effectively control Disney, if he thought it was worth his time.

Where have I seen this before?

[YrWrstNtmr]

Charismatic new age computer mogul merges upstart company with established media giant.

Let's hope it turns out better than Steve Case and AOL/TW

I Still Feel the Same As Last Year

[EXTomar]

Shameless stolen from myself from last year's story:

Yes if Disney bought Pixar they would receive a company full of talented, driven artists but that is only half of the reason why Pixar movies do so well. The other half is that management and producers protects the production. The classic story about Toy Story is that Disney fronted the money and was unhappy about the "juvenile" nature of the story and wanted to make it "modern", edgy, or whatever kids call being "cool" these day, they proceeded to hack it up. The result was crappy, no one liked it, everyone was unhappy, and Disney was moments from pulling the plug. It wasn't until Lasseter stepped in and said 'enough is enough' and fixed it by going back to their way that the project showed promise. The rest is history. Award winning history no less.

So unless Disney takes a hands off approach if they buy up Pixar (I still doubt this would happen...would Job's ego allow it?) it will go the way of their ill fated Disney Orlando Animation Studio (which made Lilo). It isn't that Pixar has talented people (go figure...Disney has them too). It is the fact that the rank and file management all the way up to Lasseter understands they need to "protect the baby". Reguardless of whether or the story is stellar, interferrence will definately rob it any chances it had of being so.

Nothing has changed from when I originally wrote that. If Disney takes over Pixar and run its as ruthless as they have their other buisness units they'll proceed to gut it. In fact it makes more sense for Job to run Disney than to have Diseny run Pixar.

This could get Jobs out of Apple

[Animats]

If Jobs ends up as chairman of Disney, he'll probably end up as CEO. Which would be an improvement over the current Disney management.

But, unlike Pixar. which is really run by Lassiter, running Disney is a full time job. Jobs would have to give up Apple, and move to LA.

Don't Do It!

[stuffduff]

Steve,

Pixar has a special ability and place in the movie industry. Don't let it fall in the hands of Disney. Sure keep them as a client, keep them happy, whatever ...

They will never really appreciate Pixar and they will run it into the ground if you let them. Just day NO!

Thanks,

-/.-

They make more money off desktops, actually.

[Viewsonic]

You might want to do some research. In a year, most of their profit has been from computer sales. IPod sales are huge. But the desktop and laptop sales are even bigger. Especially since everyone wants one because they love their IPods so much.

Wait a minute...

[Cutting_Crew]

Wasnt pixar trying to get out from under Disney after "Cars" so they could continue to make their own animations and keep all the profit? I guess i am just confused about why Pixar would want to all of a sudden sell out and change their company strategy when they could stay status quo and not selling to the likes of Disney. Why such a turnaround ? could someone please explain this to me from both a business model and common sense strategy(if there is one)? i just dont get it.

Re:Wait a minute...

[Anonymous Coward]

7 billion dollars anyone?

Walt Disney is not dead...

[SunPin]

since the passing of Walt Disney himself. He's frozen. That's why Disney has perpetual copyright.

Re:Walt Disney is not dead...

[Reverend528]

No, congress is easily bought. That's why disney has perpetual copyright.

Jobs never liked PIXAR anyways...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

The fact that John Lassetter had politely asked Jobs to stay out pixars day to day work was the beginning of the end for Pixar. Jobs doesnt care about Pixar one bit. He knows they dont like him there, so they're just a cash cow for him.

Jobs wants control of everything that he is involved with. Steve was not welcome at Pixar and had no control over them. Lassetter wanted nothing to do with Job's crazy ways.

Now Jobs is willing to dump pixar for some control over disney. He still wont be welcomed at Pixar.

Re:Jobs never liked PIXAR anyways...

[hondo77]

He knows they dont like him there, so they're just a cash cow for him.

Who modded this as interesting? This completely ignores the fact that Pixar hasn't always been a cash cow. In fact, Pixar was quite a cash sinkhole until their deals with Disney. If they hated Jobs and he was in it for the money, he would have dumped them a long time ago. Steve's not welcome at Pixar? He doesn't have the same kind of relationship with Pixar that he does with Apple but to say he's not welcome is just wrong.

Re:Jobs never liked PIXAR anyways...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

He wasnt hated and locked out from the place :) But Lasetter has talked about how Steve wanted to come in and change the entire studio, and John and Steve came to an agreement that Steve would stay out of Pixars day to day and let John run the studio as John saw fit.

Steve Jobs did infact want to come in and change what Lasetter had establed. I'm not sure at which point perhaps after TS1's success... I'm not sure how Pixar was run immediately after the sale from Lucas to Jobs... but Jobs did infact want to step into a more controlling role at Pixar, and John Lassetter said no.

And if theres anything we know about Steve Jobs.... He wants control.

Re:Jobs never liked PIXAR anyways...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Pixar at one point converted all their software to run on Apple computers by command of Jobs. Jobs then used it for PR

They didnt stick with the apple computers btw. Jobs forced it on them at the time.

Where have you been...

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it's a joke, but it's just not funny anymore, since Apple stopped bundling one-button mice. It just makes you look old and out of touch.

You can't buy Pixar, period

[Foerstner]

Pixar is majority-owned by one particular black-turtleneck-wearing shareholder who happens to be CEO. So unless he's willing to sell, you can't buy Pixar.

Since this is a stock-for-stock deal, Steve would have to be reasonably sure that the Disney stock he'd be getting would appreciate faster than the Pixar stock he'd be giving up. So I'm sure he'd talk things over with Pixar's "talent" to make sure that they'd be willing to stay and work under Disney before selling.

Re:You can't buy Pixar, period

[nagora]

So I'm sure he'd talk things over with Pixar's "talent" to make sure that they'd be willing to stay and work under Disney before selling.

And why would they be willing? Why move from Aston Martin to Fiat?

TWW

Re:You can't buy Pixar, period

[Foerstner]

And why would they be willing? Why move from Aston Martin to Fiat?

Doubtless that would be one of the things a savvy manager would consider before selling. Jobs wants a return on his investment, and Disney wants to retain the people its paying for. That's easy enough to do: Salary, bonuses, and other benefits go a long way. For creative people, give them assurances that they will have creative control over their work for Disney. For key managers, directors, and writers, offer a contract that gives them guarantees in exchange for x number of films.

After all, Aston Martin was bought out by Ford Motor years ago.

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

[SvnLyrBrto]

> At Disney, Jobs will be just another person at the boardroom table.
> Will he be a first among equals? Definitely! Will he be able to call all
> of the shots? No.

People said all these exact same things about Jobs back when Apple bought NeXT. In fact, the amount of Apple stock Jobs owned was a pittance compared to the amount of Disney stock he would own, should this deal go through. And he didn't even own that Apple stock for very long. He flipped it for cash not long after joining returning to Apple in that cute little "advisory capacity".

> And in that fact, that he won't be able to call all the shots, is the truth that
> Jobs would not likely stay long on the board. Jobs is one who has to control
> things completely. If he can't, then he will walk away.

Once again, everyone was saying the exact same thing about Apple and NeXT. And when the board meeting was over? Jobs walked away all right. He walked away with amelio's head under his arm and the board members' resignations in his pocket.

The ability to run a theme park is insignificant next to the power of the RDF.

cya,
john

Rendered 3d Mickey

[nexus987]

I'm not really a Disney guy, but it seems like Disney hasn't done much with Mickey Mouse, Goofy, etc. in a loooong time. Imagine Pixar doing a new Mickey movie. Cool.

Further speculation...

[IgLou]

...Steve Jobs is planning on using this new found position for a chance to meet Minnie Mouse so he can try to impress her with the size of his nano. :P

Delay tactics

[JPyObjC Dude]

Steve's ploy here is may be to get Disney to start thinking more of Apple as the good guys. I am sure that Steve is just delaying the day when he says goodbye to Disney permentantly and lets Pixar move into its destiny as the pinnacle of digital creativity.

Pixar now has enough clout to run head to head with the beast of Disney and fortunately for their size, they can run circles around them. Given enough time, the long term value of Pixar and their creative paradigms will make Disney shareholders sweat.

JsD

what would this mean for the disney back catalog?

[jonwil]

If this was to happen, would it mean that the disney back catalog (with all those movies & tv shows you cant get anymore like The Little Mermaid) would be available on the ITMS?
Or would it be like it is now with content being available for a limited time/limited print run?

are you sure ?

[Spaham]

Ok, so billionaire Jobs who "doesn't want to be the richest guy of the cemetery" is gonna sell his company which will soon be finally free from disney's corporate idiots in order to get a seat at their board meetings and easier access to their content ? yeah right....

oops

[Quadraginta]

Well, color me clueless blue...

Thanks for the correction!

Steve Jobs Health

[Heembo]

Jobs is a cancer survivor. And a Pancreatic cancer survivor, one of the worst forms. My question is, is Jobs up to the extra stress of leading Disney? Or is he dumping pixar to lighten his load, not increase it by coveting a leadership position at Disney? Looks to me that the boy has enough on his plate as it is.

Mods on crack

[Udo Schmitz]

"If you know anything about Steve Jobs his IDOL is Walt Disney!"

You kinda lost me there ...

"And yes, all the displays have little rainbow colored Apples on them."

Uhm, yeah, right ... +5 Interesting my ass.

Re:Mods on crack

[Anonymous Coward]

Sucking Jobs's dick is fashionable.

Disney would screw up Pixar ...

[willtsmith]

Pixar's standards are WAAAYY to high for Disney. Disney is all about money. Pixar is all about art that is profitable.

Just look back and see what happened to Miramax for a blueprint of what will happen to Pixar.

Re:Disney would screw up Pixar ...

[jcr]

Pixar is all about art that is profitable.

The mantra at Pixar is, "story, story, story". They're all about the story, and that's why they're profitable.

-jcr

Have you seen a Disney sequel????

[willtsmith]

I've seen Disney sequels. By and large, they are TERRIBLE BEYOND TERRIBLE!!!

You couldn't get Brad Bird to come and do some dopey direct to video Incredibles sequels as they have have done with virtually EVERY one of their franchises.

Lassiter could very well be put in charge of the animators. But don't full yourself, someone else will be in charge of Lassiter, and if he orders an Incredibles series written by the same people as "Return of Jafar", that it shall be done.

BTW, have you ever noticed that Pixar films don't end with a romantic ballad by a pop star regurgitated from the film. Have you ever noticed that there is no "I wish" song at the beginning of the film. These are the elements that make even the theatrical release Disney animation so incredibly formulaic and predictable.

You would NEVER see a movie up to par of "The Incredibles" or "Monsters Inc." coming out of Disney. I would not expect to see another if Disney takes over. I would expect the Disney directors to jump ship to Dreamworks or start their own outfit.

another incorrect use of "content"

[brre]

leverage Disney into releasing more content to the iTunes media service.

You mean get Disney to release more media. Or entertainment. Or movies. Or shows. Or video. Or programming.

The content if any of Disney's programming is freely available. It's the expression that Disney owns.

Re:another incorrect use of "content"

[mikeisme77]

You are correct, and I stand corrected. "Scary" thing is though that in 20-75 years, I may end up being correct because as enough people use the term incorrectly dictionaries will be revised to match the new meaning. Such is the evolution of language. When LOL gets in all major dictionaries, then we know the end is near...

Re:another incorrect use of "content"

[brre]

Right you are. Language does evolve, and English perhaps more than most languages. I find Fowler had the insight here: some changes are to be celebrated, some regretted, and some are simply change.

IMO the rampart use of "content" to refer to little more than bits for sale is regrettable because it's something of a bait-and-switch. The existing meaning implies you get something in those bits. The new usage gets to slide on that.

But yes, in 75 years a "table of contents" may be an archaic form; what, bits have a table?

It runs...

[MsGeek]

...*BSD. Well, sort of, anyway...

Iger...

[MsGeek]

...is going down, Amelio stylee.

Resistance is futile. He will be assimilated.

out of touch

[RingDev]

I'm 80 years old and have no fingers you insensitive clod!

j/k

-Rick

Lasseter rocks.

[MsGeek]

Where have recent Disney movies, including Chicken Little, failed?

Story.

What is John Lasseter the best at?

Story.

Why do the Pixar feature movies have ownage over Disney's output?

Story.

How is Lasseter going to save Disney's ass? He's going to give the Disney animators a master class in how to create a good story.

With John Lasseter running Disney Animation, I guarantee a renaissance there. Now if only he'd revive the Traditional Animation unit...sigh...

my friend's take on this

[adrianmonk]

I have a friend who is a serious, serious Disney fan. He takes being a Disney fan to a new level. He once played Disney Trivia (a knockoff of Trivial Pursuit where the subject matter is all Disney) with his wife, and she refused to play again because he got all the questions right and won on his first turn. He and his wife spent their honeymoon at Disneyland. And he mailed a wedding invitation to Mr. Mickey and Mrs. Minnie Mouse when he got married. (No, the Mouses weren't able to attend.)

Anyway, this is his take on the whole thing: if Disney and Pixar merge, this will prevent them from having to maintain separate computer / 3D animation studios. In effect, Pixar can take over all the 3D animation that Disney wants to do. This will free up Disney proper to get back to what they are (or were, but could be again?) actually good at: hand-drawn, non-computer, 2D animation.

Whether this is likely or not, I don't know. However, although people have said that hand-drawn animation is dead, my Disney freak friend and I agreed that that is about as likely as saying that since someone invented the camera, nobody is going to paint oil paintings anymore. The point is, we may have reached the stage where the novelty of 3D computer animation has worn off, and perhaps they (Disney, and others) will start doing hand-drawn animation again.

Agreed ...

[willtsmith]

In case you misunderstood, I meant that Disney is all about squeezing as much content out of their IP regardless of the quality. Why should they bother?? The kids and parents will gobble in up regardless.

Pixar would (would have) sooner folded up shop rather than put out a poor Toy Story 3 the likes of "Return of Jafar".

Disney can no longer put out good theatrical releases. They've become overly formulaic, repetitive and stupid.