Slashdot Mirror


Is Apple Looking to Buy Disney?

louismg writes "This week, Barron's is suggesting that with Steve Jobs on board as the number one shareholder of Disney, following Pixar's acquisition, that Disney is ripe for the plucking for an acquisition by Apple. But look at the numbers. Apple has a $60 billion market cap, and Disney's is over $50 billion. Apple's cash on hand is in the $10 billion range. Wouldn't a Disney acquisition eliminate the possibility of working with NBC's shows on iTunes, or working with Viacom/MTV? It would seem the conflicts and competition would outweigh a purchase of Disney - Pixar or not."

250 comments

  1. Antitrust by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apple runs iTunes. Disney produces some content. Serious risk of antitrust action.

    1. Re:Antitrust by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      Not with the bush administration. You see Microsoft got away free after being voted a monopoly and look at the recent telco mergers. They don't do the *same* thing, so it will go through no problem.

    2. Re:Antitrust by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Vertical integration and leveraging would only become monopoly issues if Disney were able to maintain their monopoly on music downloads for a good long time - and there's an argument that CDs and satellite radio are competitors to iTunes for Apple to fall back on.

    3. Re:Antitrust by tomocoo · · Score: 1

      News Corp owns Fox. News Corp buys DirecTV. Serious risk of antitrust action? No.

    4. Re:Antitrust by bloosheep · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Disney produces content. ABC airs content.

      Why wasn't that deal stopped years ago, then?

    5. Re:Antitrust by bshensky · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, c'mon. Comcast buys and decimates TechTV into G4? They own OLN. They own E! Entertainment Television. Style. The Golf Channel. Comcast SportsNet.

      Anyone have a problem with Sirius and XM providing "exclusive" content and channels? Didn't think so.

      The Bush Admin allows this to happen. The FCC is happy to take long martini lunches while the content deliverers become content providers.

      Let's face it. Deregulation amounts to a blank check for media delivery and media creators to fsck 'til the cows come home.

      Flame on, dudes...

      --
      Makin' money, makin' friends, makin' whoopee and wearin' Depends
    6. Re:Antitrust by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      No actually the antitrust law says "to be investigated under this law, your company name should begin with > and end with >"...

      Hm, this siddenly explains a lot of stuff!

    7. Re:Antitrust by suv4x4 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No actually the antitrust law says "to be investigated under this law, your company name should begin with [Micro] and end with [soft]"...

      Hm, this siddenly explains a lot of stuff!

    8. Re:Antitrust by anothy · · Score: 1

      one might think that, and it would probably be a sensible way for antitrust law to work, but it seems not to be the way ours works. co-mingling of content creation and distribution seems to just not be a problem for our legal system.

      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
    9. Re:Antitrust by ucblockhead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How is that different from Sony, which produces content and has an online store?

      --
      The cake is a pie
    10. Re:Antitrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a retard in real life or do you just play one on the net?

    11. Re:Antitrust by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 2, Informative

      "How is that different from Sony, which produces content and has an online store?"

      Because Apple's online store is successful (in fact, the dominant online music store) and Sony's (Sony Connect) is not... :)

      What everyone also seems to forget - especially with the Sony rootkit debacle - is that Sony's music division is only 50% owned by them. They merged Sony Music with BMG's holdings to create SonyBMG, co-owned by both companies.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    12. Re:Antitrust by wealthychef · · Score: 1
      You see Microsoft got away free after being voted a monopoly

      You can vote someone into being a monopoly? That's interesting news

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    13. Re:Antitrust by grogdamighty · · Score: 1

      Wasn't the antitrust investigation into Microsoft during the Clinton administration? Well, I mean... the first one.

      --
      My other sig is funny.
    14. Re:Antitrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you first hold a vote that finds someone unpopularly successful, and then try to find a charge to take them down. SCO most likely held such a vote internally prior to beginning their lawsuit with IBM.

    15. Re:Antitrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes

    16. Re:Antitrust by tpgp · · Score: 1

      How is that different from Sony, which produces content and has an online store?

      Because pixar sells content we actually like?

      Seriously - Apple has dominace in one market (online content sales) and probably wants to be careful being percieved as attemping to use that to extend into other markets.

      Its just standard (large) business practice (tm) - sony are probably careful about it too...

      --
      My pics.
    17. Re:Antitrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The settlement happened on Clinton's watch (the very last months of it). Heck, Microsoft first got big under Clinton's watch. Even the DMCA was passed during that administration. This administration even forced Microsoft to have the "Set Program Access and Defaults" item on the Start menu.

      But I forgot, everything's a sheepish bash-Bush session on Slashdot. It makes you hip and enlightened, d00d.

    18. Re:Antitrust by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      What does the "Bush Admin" have to do with this? Companies have every right to make content and to deliver content. They even have the right to be a monopoly. If they abuse it the way Microsoft did in the 90s (coercive license deals that prevented competing products from being pre-installed on OEM computers), that's different.

      Sirius and XM can have exclusive content all they want. That's the free market. This kind of stuff happened on Clinton's watch, too. I guess you forgot the late 90s bubble that grew and grew until it burst just as Clinton was heading out the door.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    19. Re:Antitrust by AoT · · Score: 1

      MicroSoft was first prosecuted when Clinton was in office. The Bush Administration settled with MicroSoft for completely absurd, non-punitive terms. Something like, give 40 million in software to schools for free. Yeah, that'll break a monopoly.

    20. Re:Antitrust by jmp_nyc · · Score: 1

      While I don't really buy into these rumors with the current information available, if there really is some sort of marriage between Disney and Apple in the works, it might explain the rumors of an iTunes spinoff IPO.

      From what I understand, iTunes itself operates as a break-even loss leader to sell more iPods. Granted, lots of people could make lots of money in an iTunes IPO by selling to people who think that any product they like using must be a good investment, but it doesn't really make business sense.

      Now, if Apple and Disney are considering something, and they're trying to figure out whether or not there'd be an anti-trust backlash, an iTunes IPO might get rid of any backlash.

      Back down to earth and removing my tinfoil hat, what I'd love to see is for Apple and Disney to announce that they're going to allow subscriptions to shows. The one that really comes to mind is a flat weekly/monthly fee for unlimited downloads of the most recent SportsCenter. After all, there's a new one 4 times a day, and plenty of people who always want to see the latest. There's a money maker there...
      -JMP

    21. Re:Antitrust by damsa · · Score: 1

      Sony makes some fine entertainment, I thought Spiderman was a pretty good movie and Jeopardy isn't so bad.

    22. Re:Antitrust by sigloiv · · Score: 1

      Comcast could only be a monopoly if they owned [i]every[/i] TV station.

      --
      Software is like sex. It's better when it's free. -Linus Torvalds
    23. Re:Antitrust by superflyguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A trust would be when one group has control of an industry. Antitrust laws are supposed to make sure trusts don't abuse their control. They prevent abuse of horizontal integration. Vertical integration does not create a trust, so any law aimed at controling companies that own all the resorces necessary for producing and distributing their products could not correctly be termed "Antitrust". (I am a Nomenclature-Nazi.)

      And it would be hard to limit vertical integration, because where do you draw the line? Apple already designs, builds, and distributes it's own computers. If that's legal, why shouldn't scripting, filming, editing, and distributing films be legal? What about selling online? What about when stores have their own trucks to transport goods... shouldn't they have to pay someone else? And I guess oil companies with rigs and ships and refineries and trucks and stations should also be illegal...

      There is no good way to regulate that. And no good reason to, because they can't use the lack of competition to raise prices or lower product quality. But sooner or later if they get too big they'll have to worry about antitrust laws.

    24. Re:Antitrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps. On the other hand, Señor Jobs is surely no gug-totin' neo-con, and actually added a certain Albert Gore to the Apple BOD not too long ago. If the dubyyites see any sort of pretense to take down a corporate "citizen" not lining up in lockstep with them, they'll take it.

      That said, Disney is hardly a paragon of libeeralism. The only way I see such a merger working is through the iron, authoritarian Fist of Jobs.

    25. Re:Antitrust by slashkitty · · Score: 1

      That's exactly how it works, except you just pay for your vote by buying something. If no one bought windows or ipods, neither ms nor apple would have a monopoly.

      --
      -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
    26. Re:Antitrust by kubrick · · Score: 1

      Only if they abuse the monopoly, or have gained it through illegal means.

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    27. Re:Antitrust by jrockway · · Score: 1

      > They even have the right to be a monopoly.

      True, in the same way you have the right to rape or murder anyone you want. Nothing is stopping you, after all... and it would sure be fun!

      > I bet you didn't know Maynard James Keenan of Tool is against illegal music piracy.

      I bet you didn't know that Maynard James Keenan of Tool is a tool.

      --
      My other car is first.
    28. Re:Antitrust by z4r4thu5tr4 · · Score: 1

      I would not see Apple as being a Monopoly of MP3 players and online music, even with their large market share of these markets. Also, the media content industry is so huge, it would be hard to see how Apple could use such a monoopoly to leverage a much larger industry.

    29. Re:Antitrust by kubrick · · Score: 1

      Even if they did manage to gain an effective monopoly (e.g. 90% plus) of online delivery of corporate media content, that's not necessarily illegal. What would be illegal would be unfairly using their position to maintain or extend the monopoly... which would mean they'd need to be transparent and careful in their pricing, corporate actions, etc. if they ever got that far.

      It's unlikely to happen, anyway -- if Apple says to, e.g., Sony or Warner, "My way or the highway", those companies are big enough to build their own road system in preference to travelling on Apple's. Also, Sony, Warner et. al. would always be keeping alternative means of online distribution on the back burner in case of any legal/technical/financial problems with their relationships with Apple.

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    30. Re:Antitrust by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 2, Informative
      The settlement happened on Clinton's watch (the very last months of it).
      By your calendar, the WTC and Pentagon attacks happened on Clinton's watch too. Because they were the month before the DOJ Microsoft settlement.
      --
      It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

      -James Baldwin
    31. Re:Antitrust by arminw · · Score: 1

      ....Because Apple's online store is successful....

      That means then that if someone is wildly successful, they automatically get hauled into court under anti-trust laws? Apple doesn't twist anyone's arm to buy iPods nor download songs. Apple owns 100% of the iTMS, the iTunes program and the exclusive right to make iPods, all as a system of interlocking parts. Should the government tell them that they have to divest themselves of one of these pieces? Even if they had 99.99% of the market in all of these, does that mean they should be hauled into court?

      If Apple were not forced by the **AA companies to have some sort of DRM, there would not have been any. It is the DRM mandated and re-inforced by law (DMCA) by the content makers that prevents other download services from working with the iPod. If the DMCA were scrapped, other music stores would easily circumvent the DRM and also sell songs for the iPod and other manufacturers make music players that work with iTunes and the ITMS. In this case, our dear government actually guarantees a monopolistic lock-in and reduces consumer choice. The presence of DRM and the DMCA reduces the revenues of the very people that purchased them from our politicians.

      --
      All theory is gray
    32. Re:Antitrust by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      True, in the same way you have the right to rape or murder anyone you want. Nothing is stopping you, after all... and it would sure be fun!

      Um...the fact there's nothing stopping you doesn't mean you have the right to do something. Flawed comparison. Companies really do have the legal right to exist as a monopoly, like your local electric company.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    33. Re:Antitrust by jrockway · · Score: 1

      You're confusing "monopoly" and "trust". In this case, the discussion is conceivably about a "trust" (and the related "antitrust" business). Some other posters have used the word monopoly, but that's not really what they mean.

      Your local electric company has a monopoly because it's the only company that bothered to build the wires. Your local Microsoft is a trust because they use illegal business practices to put their competitors out of business.

      Now I'm not sure Apple/Disney would be either a monopoly or a trust, but your original point about monopolies being legal is misguided at best.

      --
      My other car is first.
    34. Re:Antitrust by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1
      Apple runs iTunes. Disney produces some content. Serious risk of antitrust action.

      Gee guy, no kidding, eh? That would be like Time Warner trying to have a TV Network, a Record label, a Cable company, and buy an ISP...oh wait.

      In other words, how in the fuckety-fuck does that get modded 'insightful'?

    35. Re:Antitrust by jkauzlar · · Score: 1
      Good point.. and I agree that a company has a *right* to a monopoly but only so long as it doesn't hinder the market from catching up to it. As capitalism goes, Apple ought to be rewarded for their success in bringing the mp3 player to mass market. Call it a monopoly if you want, but by the laws of the market, it should only last so long. That's what makes the microsoft monopoly so disturbing.. it's been like a decade and a half now and the U.S. gov't refuses to do anything about it.

      Now why the monopoly issue is arising as a result of a rumor of an alleged plan to buy Disney is a mystery to me, particularly with the conflict of interest surrounding the plan and their iTunes business. Disney and Pixar are good as long as they produce good material. ABC has a poor reputation and their programming usually sucks. ESPN is probably being hit really hard by Fox Sports. I don't see the potential for concern.

    36. Re:Antitrust by bshensky · · Score: 1

      My clarification re: deregulation, monopoly, antitrust, Bush Admin, etc...

      I am a proponent of the separation of content creation and content delivery, because I believe the separation of these fosters a healthier content ecosystem: more content is created, said content has a better opportunity for distribution, and distribution itself becomes rightfully commoditized (and subject to typical economic behaviors therein).

      Now, if this is indeed "regulation", then I can't wait 'til *your* one and only available Internet provider scales back your access to /. after they read your posts beligerent of their company. Commoditized distribution is the foundation of this here Internet, and you'll be clamoring for your provider to give unencumbered access to the Net under threat of government "regulation".

      (Think it won't happen? That "tiered" Internet that's been on the minds of Charter, Comcast and AT&T just might involve packet-DEprioritization of your VoIP connection. Or how about the Baby Bells that have all but extinguished DSL "competition". Got it?)

      So, as I subscribe to the separation of content creation and content delivery, I must be critical of *any* administration (Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Gore, whatever, really, honest) that has the FCC not just take a laissez faire approach, but actually encourages the mergers and acquisitions that further restrict entry to the content delivery market.

      I have *no problem* with content creators and distributors striking deals with each other. They remain separate companies that engage each other for mutual - but not necessarily *exclusive* - benefit.

      My point about Comcast is that TechTV might still be around today had Comcast not been allowed to purchase the network. Likewise, as parent of a preschooler, I'd love to gain access to more kids' programming, but access to it is all but controlled by the content *providers* available in my region. Maybe there's more and better kids' programming out there, but with these companies holding the keys to the broadcast, how could we ever know?

      I suspect that the FCC is counting on new distribution *technologies* as the market "enabler" in the face of content creation/delivery fusion (e.g. XM & Sirius forge competition against terrestrial FM radio). In that vein, I suspect IPTV will have a real role in competing with cable and satellite - it's probably why this little ditty about Disney and iTunes-maker Apple surfaced to begin with. TV over IP. Yes?

      But I think in the long haul we'll run out of new technologies to exploit before we'd run out of hypothetical market-commoditized content distribution market players.

      But that's just me.

      --
      Makin' money, makin' friends, makin' whoopee and wearin' Depends
    37. Re:Antitrust by jkauzlar · · Score: 1
      Aha, very insightful and I'm well aware of the future of a tiered internet. I'm a little behind on my facts, but I'm not sure what apple has to do with iptv. Do they own XM or Sirius? or does Disney?

      Regarding the tiered internet, I definitely think there's a cause for concern there, and mostly because the mass market wouldn't even see a cause for concern. All of the mainstream media sites will be on privileged tiers. The communications companies will spin it as a faster way to reach the more important sites and 'True Americans' know that organizations/websites with money behind them are, almost by definition, better than independents.

      But as a believer in liberalism, I know that such paranoid-sounding scenarios can never happen because of the power of free speech and the willingness of the masses of noisy left-wingers to make use of it.

  2. Mating of dinosaurs by justthinkit · · Score: 0

    Without Pixar, Disney is nothing. Without iPod, Apple is nothing.

    --
    I come here for the love
    1. Re:Mating of dinosaurs by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Disney without Pixar is still an incredibly viable company. Pixar made a few good films under Disney but that is all. Disney is a conglomerate that wisely does not rely on one thing to keep it viable. They produce many films under various film companies and while not all are as widely successful as some of their Pixar created works they do very well. Look towards Hollywood and compare the numbers. The sheer number of films being produced shows that it is very few that ever make it well in the theaters.

      Sure Disney would have been better off with Pixar still making films for them. Yet Disney can survive failing films better than Pixar could.

      As for your Apple comment. Apple still has a very loyal and devoted following for their computer and software products. While not on the scale of Microsoft they are still holding their own and in some cases staging a come-back. The iPod was a stroke of luck. It was the right product at the right time. Apple for all its creativity could leverage that further by opening up the iPod to play DRM'd music provided by other sources but hasn't had to so because they still have a majority of the US market. They might in the future move that way, most likely overseas at first but for now they have no need. As with Disney Apple diversified. They were simply existing with their sales of Macs and related software. With more than one viable revenue stream they are growing. This allows them to take more risks and further expand their original business.

      Neither company needs the other.

      --
      * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    2. Re:Mating of dinosaurs by cowscows · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed, specifically in regards to Apple. The iPod has been a huge success for them, no doubt, and I'm sure they're glad to have that money. But even before the iPod came about, Apple had done a pretty good job of turning around their computer business. They were making profit, OSX was up and coming, and the iMacs, iBooks, and Powerbooks were all well received. Sure, they weren't outselling Dell, but a lot of people forget that you don't have to completely dominate a market to have a successful business.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    3. Re:Mating of dinosaurs by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      Apple sells computers too. I think people forget that. Remember we've seen two OSX viruses recently. Do people develop viruses for dead platforms? I think not. Also, I'd guess that OSX and Linux are about equal in terms of installs counting desktops and servers. If its ok to support the underdog (linux) on slashdot, why is every other OS always dead or dying? I maybe only one person, but I personally administer 40 OSX clients and 2 xserves at work and have 4 macs in my home. Apple wouldn't have had the money to make the iPod if it weren't for the iMac and iBook.

      Unrelated, on the dead os count I have 3 BSD machines and a sparc running solaris too, but only one machine running Linux. :)

    4. Re:Mating of dinosaurs by Billly+Gates · · Score: 0, Troll

      I was looking for a mac for my father.

      His gateway is dying. Well I figured in 10 years that the mac would have made progress in available software but it has declined seriously since the mid 1990's.

      He needs to do his taxes and turbotax and other software is only available for windows now even if the marketshare is higher.

      Tax season is coming so guess who is getting another wintel system?

      Besides FOSS there is nothing besides a few niche graphical apps. Its still dying and FOSS is great for programmers but not average joes.

      PS .. I was looking into getting a macbook pro for school as I am a MIS major and love the FOSS software. I am not anti-mac. But just stating the truth.

      Unless Apple can get these vendors to ship products for the mac its not going to be a reality. I blame Microsoft for making c++ on windows so damn proprietary that its not even funny. Its so hard to port for anythign but windows taht many firms who produce software just gave up on non windows platforms.

    5. Re:Mating of dinosaurs by Hangtime · · Score: 1

      Its the difference though of Apple being a niche player in the computer market versus Apple being an industry player in entertainment shaping the next 10 years. The Ipod was the right product at the right time but everyone forgets that their were more than a few players out before the Ipod (see Diamond Rio). Sometimes a firm can get lucky, if you take enough chances you will.

    6. Re:Mating of dinosaurs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "turbotax and other software is only available for windows now"

      Poster is a lazy troll who can't even spend the 15 seconds to find out this isn't true. I have done my taxes with Turbotax on the Macintosh for years and years.

      "I am not anti-mac. But just stating the truth"

      95% of the time when someone says this it is complete crap. Dumbass.

    7. Re:Mating of dinosaurs by alfredo · · Score: 1

      It appears that Pixar will have a lot of control over creativity. They will also have creative control over theme parks. Disney needs the creative forces inside the company. One of Disney's top animators went to Pixar, now he is back working for Disney.

      Apple doesn't need to buy Disney, they have a mole inside the boardroom. I'm sure there will be some sharing of intellectual property between Jobs and Disney, and a lot more Macs glowing in neutral colored rooms deep in the bowels of Disney.

      --
      photosMy Photostream
    8. Re:Mating of dinosaurs by bsane · · Score: 1

      He needs to do his taxes and turbotax and other software is only available for windows now even if the marketshare is higher.

      I'll just repeat this in case someone misses the ACs who posted below:

      TurboTax works on Mac!! They stopped selling different versions a few years ago. Now when you buy TurboTax you get the Windows AND Mac version on the same disk.

      BTW- TurboTax is _much_ better this year (at least the Mac version is). Its faster and better organized than in years past...

    9. Re:Mating of dinosaurs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But macs still suck

    10. Re:Mating of dinosaurs by arminw · · Score: 1

      ....Sometimes a firm can get lucky,....

      I think that in the case of the iPod, there is more to it than dumb luck. It is the synergy between Ipod, iTunes and the ITMS as a complete, highly portable and easy to use personal music reproducing system that made it so successful. Apple is good at that sort of "do the whole job right" thing and will probably sell lots of new Intel based Macs. This will be especially true once Microsoft or someone else figures out how to get Windows running on these hot, well designed computers. Since it is highly unlikely that Apple will sell computers with Windows pre-installed, Microsoft will profit by selling many high profit retail copies of Windows to Mac buyers.

      --
      All theory is gray
    11. Re:Mating of dinosaurs by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      There's a good case to be made that Pixar just bought Disney in much the same way that NeXT bought Apple. Look at the commanding heights of Apple Computer these days. Do you see the same crew that bought NeXT with a few NeXT survivors integrated into the management team or do you see the reverse with NeXT veterans dominating?

      Why shouldn't Steve Job's *other* company try to replicate that success? Who cares what the nameplate says out front? If the technology, the management style, and the personnel shift to make Disney a Pixar writ large, who really bought who?

    12. Re:Mating of dinosaurs by ninjaonvacation · · Score: 1

      iPod opening up to other DRM'd music files will help OTHER companies sell and gain popularity in selling digital music, you can buy an iPod but never use ITMS, not neccesarily good for ITMS me thinks

    13. Re:Mating of dinosaurs by justthinkit · · Score: 0

      There's a good case to be made that Pixar just bought Disney in much the same way that NeXT bought Apple. I think this is quite true.

      --
      I come here for the love
    14. Re:Mating of dinosaurs by bsane · · Score: 1

      Thats pretty funny, but that guy has some serious issues...

    15. Re:Mating of dinosaurs by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      "I am not anti-mac. But just stating the truth", in the context of the incorrect information is in a similar vein to "I'm not racist, I just don't think that are as bouyant as white people" conversations.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
  3. They would still make money by Rayaru · · Score: 1

    NBC would still make money, and Apple would still make a commission, from sales of its shows in iTMS, even if a whole bunch of Disney/Pixar movies suddlenly showed up one day. So no, I don't think it would preclude anything.

    1. Re:They would still make money by capecodcarl · · Score: 1

      I think what the submitter was getting at is that Disney owns ABC so there would be a definite conflict of interest there. NBC's not going to sell its shows through a competitor's service. While we're rumor-mongering I heard that Google was going to buy SCO and open source the Linux kernel and that Microsoft was going to buy Apple and put Windows on all the new Macs.

    2. Re:They would still make money by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "NBC would still make money, and Apple would still make a commission, from sales of its shows in iTMS, even if a whole bunch of Disney/Pixar movies suddlenly showed up one day. So no, I don't think it would preclude anything."

      NBC - aka NBC Universal - does what is best for its majority shareholder, GE. Since the tenure of Jack Welch, GE has strived to place itself at #1 and #2 of any industry it competes in. If a division does not achieve those rankings, GE gets out of that business. Thus, according to that philosophy, NBC Universal won't knee-jerk drop its content from the iTunes Store just because Apple and Disney might merge, because there's no other online store that comes close to iTunes and thus NBC Universal would not make as much as they currently do with iTunes if they switched to another offering.

      If anything, judging from the current media company trend, if Apple and Disney merged, the former Capital Cities/ABC division would be spun off, just as Viacom split itself back into the separate entities of CBS and Viacom to appease shareholders.

      Btw, I'm in agreement with your post...I'm just adding further support to counter any contrary replies.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    3. Re:They would still make money by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Nononono, you got that last one wrong. According to Dvorak, Apple is going to buy Microsoft. . . licenses for Windows. Uh, because, uh, because Windows is light years ahead of Mac OS X and everyone is already using Windows. Or something. I dunno, John seemed so convincing at the time.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  4. "News for Nerds?" by d.corri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More like "Speculation for Nerds."

    1. Re:"News for Nerds?" by vrta · · Score: 1

      More like "Speculation for Nerds. Stuff that might matter soon."

      --
      Why don't sheep shrink when it rains?
  5. Makes sence by nurb432 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Sell Pixar for extra cash and get control of the board. Then use Apple's power/money to take over Disney.

    Afterwards, convert Apple completely into a 'content provider/distributor' and get out of the desktop comptuer market totally. ( that process has already started )

    Way to go Jobs. ( that was sarcasm there )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Makes sence by richdun · · Score: 1
      Afterwards, convert Apple completely into a 'content provider/distributor' and get out of the desktop comptuer market totally.

      Anyone who thinks the desktop computer market has much life past 2010 isn't paying attention. For consumers, it'll be all about media and communication, not having a workhouse machine able to do whatever all at once. Laptops will be the machine of choice for travellers for their all-in-one ease of transport, but an Xbox/Tivo/TV-like box, an iPod-like phone/media device, and some device for video/e-mail will be all consumers need. I know its been predicted for years, but with consumer tech like the iPod taking off far beyond what anyone thought in 2001 and the power race over in favor of efficiency, ease of use, etc, it looks like it might actually happen. Specialized, integrated home devices will dominate the consumer market. Only research labs, universities, and data-oriented businesses will need the traditional computer.

    2. Re:Makes sence by superflyguy · · Score: 1

      And if it's all about media and communication, what's going to happen to all the other tasks computers perform? Are they going to not exist suddenly on the basis of the year?

      I'm sorry, but it just doesen't make sense to say that there won't be any use for desktops by 2010 unless someone makes dumb terminals work, and gets people to not be paranoid that the remote server will be hacked and all their private data stolen. Desktops are cheaper than laptops, high end ones are more powerful than high-end laptops, and some people just don't like sitting at a desk working on a laptop. They are more customizable than devices designed for only one or two tasks. They can be upgraded as they get older. And ok... 3 boxes cost... how much? That's right: more than 1 box costs! And if you put them all in one to lower the cost again what do you get? That's right: A desktop!

      It's clearly true that they will have a diminished marketshare. Are they going to die eventually? Yes. Will they be almost dead by 2010? No. Between change resistant people, the advangages desktops have, and the fact that any product capable of killing the desktop as we know in such a short ammount of time would essentially be a different type of desktop, the desktop isn't going to vanish by 2010.

    3. Re:Makes sence by coolgeek · · Score: 1

      I suppose it may happen. That is, of course, if nobody has a job in 2010.

      --

      cat /dev/null >sig
    4. Re:Makes sence by gig · · Score: 1

      The iPod is really great but it is a paperweight if you don't plug it into a Mac at some point and put some music on it. Also, if you want to make your own music, there is nothing better than a Mac at the heart of your studio.

      A camcorder is highly specialized, has a lens and microphone and makes and stores movie clips. If you hook it up to a Mac you can edit the clips and create an actual movie. You can turn the movie into a DVD. You can put the movie on the Web.

      The wireless phone is great but I get a new one every year and that whole process is much easier since the phones started having Bluetooth in them, meaning they could automatically get all my phone numbers from where they are centrally stored which is on my Mac.

      The more specialized devices I get the more I need that main full-featured computer, actually two since I have a notebook also. What's more, I'm more likely to buy a Mac mini and an HDTV these days instead of TV, DVD, CD, DVR, etc. so there is a case of a small full-featured computer taking the place of a specialized device.

  6. But why would they? by cowscows · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't see what Apple really has to gain from buying Disney that Jobs probably can't negotiate out of Disney already. Rights to put Disney content and pixar content on iTMS? I'm willing to bet that was already talked over heavily during the pixar deal. Does any one think that Apple wants to worry about running theme parks? Even if they could manage to afford it, it doesn't seem like Apple has much to gain by buying them.

    --

    One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    1. Re:But why would they? by cowscows · · Score: 1

      I was bored. It quacked and threw it back.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    2. Re:But why would they? by thedletterman · · Score: 1
      What did Sony have to gain by buying MGM back in 1990? Did you really think the people who made the walkman wanted to produce movies?

      There is nothing to guarantee that Apple will continue their huge lead in the portable media device market, and everything to suggest their enormous profits are to be short lived. The computer business is questionably profitable for Apple, and media and entertainment diversification will be the only thing that keeps Apple from becoming the people who make over-priced computer accessories in five years.

      I told everyone I knew 3 years ago that Apple would be migrating to the x86 architecture by 2006. The iPod had outperformed their computer sales, which were then struggling with the gratitious power demands of the G5 processor completely perplexed how to make it work in a laptop.

      --
      Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
    3. Re:But why would they? by 3D+Monkey · · Score: 1

      additionally... why would Jobs want to? He's already getting a fat paycheck cut from the Disney corp... he essentially "owns" the name of Disney already with all the media fantasia over the PIXAR merger.

      The people who Steve trusts for creative (John Lassiter [sp?], Ed Catmul, etc...) now have essentially Stalinist control over ALL of Disney's creative (including the imagineers who make the ride concepts and other Disney trinkets) and have already scrapped the probably terrible Toy Story 3. They obviously can take Disney where ever they want already.

      So my question again, is WHY whould Apple want to buy Disney when they can very easily enjoy life as partners in content creation and distribution? Steve gets majority say in both companies, and there's no worries about anti-trust.

    4. Re:But why would they? by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      and there's no worries about anti-trust.

      Not so much Anti-trust, but shareholder lawsuits. A director at Disney can't just throw business to Apple because he owns a stake in both companies -- if the hand isn't played perfectly, other shareholders at Disney will be quite angry.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    5. Re:But why would they? by cowscows · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, and look how well it's worked out for Sony in the long run. You've got conflict between the content producing side and the electronics side that has pretty much handicapped both in terms of new innovations, and that's a big part of what allowed Apple to have so much success as of late. And now Sony's big cash cow is their video games division, which is propping up their ailing consumer electronics and media divisions.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    6. Re:But why would they? by cfulmer · · Score: 1

      Well, actually the standard for what the directors can do is pretty low. Directors are typically held to the "Business Judgment" rule, which basically means that unless you're clearly just throwing the corporation's money away, courts are not going to supplant your business decisions with their own. One of the advantages of being the largest shareholder is that you get to influence board policy the way that you want to. At a large corporation like Disney, other shareholder can just sell if they don't like it.

      Heck, Look at the Disney/Ovitz thing -- if THAT wasn't a violation, then what makes you think tossing some business to Apple is?

    7. Re:But why would they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent 'insightful,' please.

    8. Re:But why would they? by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the Disney/Ovitz thing, but a quick Google seems to imply that it was a shareholder lawsuit.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    9. Re:But why would they? by arminw · · Score: 1

      ....There is nothing to guarantee that Apple will continue their huge lead in the portable media device market, and everything to suggest their enormous profits are to be short lived......

      Of course there are no guarantees, yet you and others nevertheless like to prognosticate. So here is my $.02 prediction. Apple will come out with an iPhone that'll combine the functions of an iPod, phone and a simple but useful web capable information manager. It will be integrated with their line of Macs. The Macs will have the roles of controller, interface to the Internet, Tivo like TV functions, as well as the traditional computer jobs. The profitable high end Macs will continue to serve the increasing number of people who also want to create and not just consume content.

      --
      All theory is gray
    10. Re:But why would they? by cfulmer · · Score: 1

      It was a shareholder suit. The shareholders lost.

  7. Name the new company by Psykechan · · Score: 4, Funny

    My vote is for Disnapple!

    1. Re:Name the new company by vrta · · Score: 2, Funny

      Since it is Apple buying Disney, I would choose: "Appney".

      --
      Why don't sheep shrink when it rains?
    2. Re:Name the new company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer Appley.

    3. Re:Name the new company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats too long. How about Dipple?

    4. Re:Name the new company by colenski · · Score: 1

      Mighty Mouse.

    5. Re:Name the new company by jZnat · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that if Apple buys Disney, Mickey Mouse will soon only have one button on his trousers. ;)

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    6. Re:Name the new company by someguyfromdenmark · · Score: 0
      "My vote is for Disnapple!"
      I gotta go with Disapply.
      --
      I change my sig often.
    7. Re:Name the new company by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Mighty Mouse!

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    8. Re:Name the new company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disnippley!

    9. Re:Name the new company by nickscalise · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      And their theme parks would be called Appnia!

    10. Re:Name the new company by G-funk · · Score: 1

      Fo shizzle nizzle.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
  8. Well, IF it happens.... by wesley96 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I remember ABC TV's logo getting the Mickey ears on the day Disney acquired them. If Apple takes over Disney, I somehow envision this happening:

    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~wgst60/projects/chicago/ Final%20Project_natalia_files/image010.jpg

    --
    Serving time in Aristotelean prison for violating laws of physics
    1. Re:Well, IF it happens.... by prichardson · · Score: 1

      Are you going for First Surrealist Post?

      --
      Help I'm a rock.
  9. Taking the Mickey out of computers by HermanAB · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...and I always thought that Microsoft make Mickey mouse computer systems...

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
    1. Re:Taking the Mickey out of computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FWIW: I don't think what your sig means is what you want it to mean. As it stands it doesn't really mean anything much - something like "Big brother, - hey, you guys, look!"

    2. Re:Taking the Mickey out of computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wakka wakka wakka!

    3. Re:Taking the Mickey out of computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah. Microsoft makes the Teletubbies computer systems. Just look at the Windows XP default colors and wallpaper.

  10. No Chance by Hangtime · · Score: 1

    Nice pipe dream but these companies are in WAY TWO DIFFERENT BUSINESSES. One is television, movies, theme parks and merchandising. The other is in hi-tech hardware manufacturing, software development, and digital distribution. Putting them together would create a conglomerate and the market HATES conglomerates. If the market wants to diversify they buy Disney and Apple stock not look for Disney and Apple to get together.

    1. Re:No Chance by tepples · · Score: 1

      One is television, movies, theme parks and merchandising.

      In other words, DIS is already a conglomerate.

    2. Re:No Chance by hhawk · · Score: 1

      Very different businesses! agreed.

      So if they did merge, they would have to merge their business goals.. The entertainment thing is something that Apple is big on creating but not really so big on distributing (even w/ iTunes).

      What TV network and movide studio is going to use Apple Hardware if its owned by the competition?

      Besides the channel conflict (hardware and software) w/ other providers (networks, studios, etc.), unless Apple wanted to get into the home robot market via Animatronics I don't see any synergy. Even if Apple wanted to a) get further into consumer electronics and do TVs, etc. they don't need to buy Disney to get content.

      --
      http://www.hawknest.com/
    3. Re:No Chance by AaronGTurner · · Score: 1

      Hi tech hardware will be the means of delivering such content. By securing all points you have a vertical market. At the moment Microsoft is better positioned than Apple in terms of providing the last part of this in the home TV/film domain via Windows Media Centre Edition, but Apple potentially has the music and mobile video markets better under control via various iPods. Now if Apple was able to take something the size of a Mac Mini and adapt it to a media centre task then it might have something special. By controlling an important content provider it makes its job easier in terms of delivering content to such a machine (not by much - you wouldn't want to spite your nose too much by not selling to Windows folks too) by just enough to give itself some leverage (probably not a huge amount as you need to deliver content from all sorts of providers, but it might give an edge). You might argue that the switch to Intel is also timely here as it might have better availability of processors (since IBM is likely to be more interested in selling to Sony due to volume and Sony is going to be playing the same game as Apple/Disney with its own content and delivery system, the PS3).

    4. Re:No Chance by smchris · · Score: 1

      Not to mention a teeny-tad of brand disharmony? Apple is nothing without style and Disney is a symbol of what's weird and tasteless about America. Will the primary colored blue, red, yellow and black ipod shaped like Mickey have the same appeal?

    5. Re:No Chance by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      I absolutely agree with you. This rumor is about as ridiculous as when people said AOL was going to merge with Time-Warner. It just makes no sense, and will absolutely never happen.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    6. Re:No Chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The AOL-Time-Warner merger was a mistake and cost Time-Warner dearly. Is your point simply that there's a precedence for stupidity in the market?

    7. Re:No Chance by Hangtime · · Score: 1

      Hence wise DIS stock has been in the gutter for so long.

    8. Re:No Chance by Hangtime · · Score: 1

      Your basic premise is that in order to be sucessful you have to control the entire value chain. If we have seen anything from customers is that they punish those firms that try to lock them into one particular market. I don't believe Sony's plan will work, Microsoft will not own content, and Disney and Apple should remain seperate and focus on what they are good at it (brand management and style).

    9. Re:No Chance by Hangtime · · Score: 1

      What was the impetus for the AOL-TimeWarner merger? If you look back it wasn't harmonizing and creating more content efficiently it was TimeWarner wanting to hike their stock price by linking itself with the Internet. Those conditions will not exist perhaps ever but definitely nowhere anytime soon, so no we will not see something like Disney and Apple getting together because the market and companies figured out it doesn't create shareholder value.

    10. Re:No Chance by AaronGTurner · · Score: 1
      Your basic premise is that in order to be sucessful you have to control the entire value chain.

      No, it is that doing so may confer an advantage in some instances, and for Apple/Disney this could be the case, not that it is an absolute requirement. Given the competitiveness of the market even a small advantage could be significant. I'm suggesting this as a possiblity, but you'd want to do serious analysis to know if this truly is the case for Apple/Disney, and I don't have the figures for this. There do seem to be changes afoot, which might hint at something happening, though.

      I don't believe Sony's plan will work.

      Sony currently has a 70% market share in terms of consoles, and the media centre market is still open. I am not suggesting that Sony's plan will work, but it is already largely positioned end-to-end from content production to delivery, and this may be amplified by DRM in the future. The wildcard are the competing content delivery systems (Blu Ray and HD-DVD), of course

      Disney and Apple should remain seperate and focus on what they are good at it (brand management and style).

      And that might be a wise choice, but it would also depend on an detailed analysis of what is to be gained by various levels of integration. The complicating factor here is that Steve Jobs is a forceful personality and may have his own agenda in this regard.

      Microsoft will not own content,

      Microsoft has been getting interested in more vertical integration of its products as the PC market has become more saturated. It needs to do this to provide enough revenue growth to continue to interest investors. The most recent announcements have been with regards to VoIP technology, and more signficantly IPTV. It is also partnering more closely with Time Warner and seemed potentially interested in buying AOL. So Microsoft does not yet own content, and it doesn't seem necessarily likely that it will, but it positioning itself more closely to content providers in this arena. Perhaps the Apple-Disney link up will be no more than this in the end.

    11. Re:No Chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The market hates conglomerates."

      Yeah, right. Like this?

      http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=my&s=GE&l=off&z=l& q=l&c=&c=%5EGSPC&c=%5EIXIC&c=%5EDJI

    12. Re:No Chance by ManOfMidnight · · Score: 1
      Will the primary colored blue, red, yellow and black ipod shaped like Mickey have the same appeal?

      No. That particular model won't fit in your pocket unless you're wearing Disney brand pants with the specially shaped pocket. I, for one, am not willing to deal with that much hassle.

      --
      A proud provider of services through the Microsoft Reboot Engineer Certification since 1997!
    13. Re:No Chance by Hangtime · · Score: 1

      No, it is that doing so may confer an advantage in some instances
      Fair enough, I'm not sure there is one but the possibility is that it might.

      Sony currently has a 70% market share in terms of consoles, and the media centre market is still open...

      Sony has been trying the same strategy since the early 80's with owning end-to-end. It has somewhat worked in some high-end niche markets (see broadcast television equipment) but has fallen flat on its face in the consumer sector. The problem with Sony it has two competing factions within it with very different aims. If you bet Sony and hence anyone that has both hardware and content, you have diametrically SBUs with opposite goals and that doesn't make a you a long-term winner (see the crippled MP3 walkman).

      And that might be a wise choice, but it would also depend on an detailed analysis of what is to be gained by various levels of integration. The complicating factor here is that Steve Jobs is a forceful personality and may have his own agenda in this regard.

      The merger would be extremely messy and as someone who worked for the Mouse for a time, I'm not sure Jobs personality would work for Disney. Disney is very much a company that lives its history. I do not think Jobs could appreciate that.

      Microsoft
      Everything you cited, Microsoft wants to be a gatekeeper not an owner. Microsoft truly understands its better to CONTROL an asset then own it, hence why they leave others to do so.

    14. Re:No Chance by coolgeek · · Score: 1

      If we have seen anything from customers is that they punish those firms that try to lock them into one particular market.

      Perhaps within the geek segment of their customer base. I don't think iTunes success supports your assertion.

      Disney and Apple should remain seperate and focus on what they are good at

      You mean kind of like Apple and Pixar have done for the past umpteen years with the same CEO at the helm? I kinda doubt in any acquisition scenario that Jobs would step in to run the Disney division. He likes Iger, and I think he would retain him as his Lieutenant in charge over there. Jobs knows an important part of his success is letting really smart people do what they do, and he applies pressure and vision to help them exceed what they would do by themselves.

      --

      cat /dev/null >sig
  11. I like the way this analyst is thinking! by wfberg · · Score: 4, Funny

    I like the way this analyst is thinking!
    Steve Jobs buys a soda "Apple to claim stake in Pepsico!", Steve Jobs steps into a pharmacy to get some painkillers; "Apple poised to take over Merck!"..

    I'll make some predictions of my own;
    "Larry Ellison to use underwear!"
    "Michael Dell poised to drink overpriced bottled water!"
    "Bill Gates to live in house with hot&cold running water, roof!"

    --
    SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    1. Re:I like the way this analyst is thinking! by mccalli · · Score: 4, Funny
      "Michael Dell poised to drink overpriced bottled water!"

      Yeah, typical PC companies. They're always trying to copy Steve Jobs...

      Cheers,
      Ian

    2. Re:I like the way this analyst is thinking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Larry Ellison to use underwear!"

      This is rediculous. Everybody knows Ellison goes commando.

    3. Re:I like the way this analyst is thinking! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Clearly the analysts are wrong here. Speculation is meant to be about companies buying Apple, not about Apple buying companies. They're the beleaguered ones, remember?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:I like the way this analyst is thinking! by stevejobsjr · · Score: 1

      "Larry Ellison to use underwear!" That's what you think...

    5. Re:I like the way this analyst is thinking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steve Jobs buys a soda "Apple to claim stake in Pepsico!"


      Apple selling sugared water?!? Whatever happened to changing the world!?! ;-)
  12. Name for x86 Mac mini !! by ceeam · · Score: 4, Funny

    Mickey Mac (with a special edition Minney mouse).

    1. Re:Name for x86 Mac mini !! by accessdeniednsp · · Score: 1

      HAHAHA!! Mod parent up!

    2. Re:Name for x86 Mac mini !! by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
      with a special edition Minney mouse

      But still only one button....

  13. Because AOL/TimeWarner/WFTBBQ worked so well by Matey-O · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Remember the last round of huge company consolidation? The TW/AOL group and msnbc folks kinda wish they could forget. Apple is a GREAT hw/sw company, Steve might -own- hw/sw and the media it runs on, but it'd be best to keep them seperate entities in his checkbook ledger.

    --
    "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
  14. Maybe so, but ... by argoff · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Apple runs iTunes. Disney produces some content. Serious risk of antitrust action.

    Maybe so, but just look at Disney with their intellectually challenging content production, and Apple with their beautifull non proprietary hardware ;) Who can deny that these two companies truely deserve each other?

  15. No chance of Apple buying Disney..... by postbigbang · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It fits none of Apple's agendas to do so, in fact it would create numerous difficulties for both companies. Instead, it would be better to break up Disney into new pieces that reflect operating income better, just like Icahn was trying to do to Time Warner AOL.

    Barrons had too many martinis before they wrote that one.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    1. Re:No chance of Apple buying Disney..... by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "It fits none of Apple's agendas to do so, in fact it would create numerous difficulties for both companies. Instead, it would be better to break up Disney into new pieces that reflect operating income better, just like Icahn was trying to do to Time Warner AOL."

      Carl Icahn sucks. He has proposed nothing new concerning future scenarios with Time Warner than has not already been addressed by other shareholders and the board. He did not come up with the idea to spin off the Time Warner Cable division. That was already on the table before he even showed up on the scene.

      Carl Icahn does what is best for Carl Icahn and nothing else. He got his azz handed to him when he tried to acquire Marvel a few short years ago...

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  16. Actually it would make sense... by deacon · · Score: 1
    Apple video ipod needs content.

    Disney has lots of it.

    Additional benefits are who would be pissed off at this: someone who thinks Tom and Jerry cartoons are a Zionist plot.

    Linky:

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=1940 9_Iranian_Madness_Watch&only

    1. Re:Actually it would make sense... by eZtreme · · Score: 1

      And how many people would want to watch a mouse on their ipod? Maybe couple decades ago when the mouse was "cool".

    2. Re:Actually it would make sense... by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Tom and Jerry an MGM cartoon, not a Disney cartoon? Though, of course, objecting to that little error among the vast swaths of disinformation on that page is a little ridiculous.

  17. Comcast by Hyter · · Score: 1

    Remember when Comcast was going to buy Disney...

    1. Re:Comcast by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "Remember when Comcast was going to buy Disney..."

      Comcast should be banned from buying any more companies for at least ten years after their track record with G4 and their acquisition of TechTV. They've burned through at least $1 billion in Comcast shareholder money on that failure already.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  18. we know how this movie ends by minus_273 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I could of sworn i saw a similar one called AOL-Timewarner

    --
    The war with islam is a war on the beast
    The war on terror is a war for peace
    1. Re:we know how this movie ends by cosmo7 · · Score: 1

      Agreed, though AOL-TimeWarner was a tragedy, whereas Apple-Disney would be a farce.

  19. snapple? by tepples · · Score: 1

    My vote is for Disnapple!

    Taken.

  20. This news... by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

    ... somehow fell right on top of another article in my brain: "Apple abandons OSX in favor of Windows". Dvorak did you write that? Hey I see you, Dvorak, don't hide!

  21. Why does Apple keep so much cash on hand by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

    the only reason to keep that cash is to help you grow your business(not buy an aging and struggling Disney IMO), but Apple seems to keep an insane amount on hand. If you aren't going to do anything with it why not return it to the shareholders via dividends? Apple doesn't even pay dividends, and it's not like paying dividends is totally unknown in this business. Microsoft was dragged into doing it recently, and hell, even Nintendo does it(not a whole lot, but it's something!)

    1. Re:Why does Apple keep so much cash on hand by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "the only reason to keep that cash is to help you grow your business(not buy an aging and struggling Disney IMO), but Apple seems to keep an insane amount on hand. If you aren't going to do anything with it why not return it to the shareholders via dividends? Apple doesn't even pay dividends, and it's not like paying dividends is totally unknown in this business. Microsoft was dragged into doing it recently, and hell, even Nintendo does it(not a whole lot, but it's something!)"

      I'd rather see Apple acquire some great technology with that cash on hand. Say for example TiVo, or Danger (Sidekicks I, II, & III), or even privately held Roxio (for Toast/Jam and a large market share on the Windows side with Easy Media Creator software). We should all remember that Microsoft horded cash for years until its growth started to stagnate/mature, not to mention attracted adventurous litigation hoping to make Microsoft part with that large pile of money through the settlement process. When Apple has $60 billion in the bank, then it will be time to start pressuring them to pay stock dividends.

      Gawd, would I love to see Apple acquire both Atari Inc. (aka Infogrames USA) and Midway in order to reunify all that is "Atari" under one roof again, last seen together circa June 1984.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    2. Re:Why does Apple keep so much cash on hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Apple doesn't even pay dividends
      Check your facts. They do.
    3. Re:Why does Apple keep so much cash on hand by gig · · Score: 2, Informative

      Tech companies keep cash on hand rather than inventory.

      Computers are time-sensitive. You don't make 1000 computers in January and store them until March. Instead you bank the cash in January and make the computers in March after they are already sold. It's all the just-in-time inventory and supply chain stuff taken to a ridiculous degree.

      Then you add the uncertainty and ups and downs of the technology industry and the need to aquire other companies and technologies in order to grow and there are many reasons to have cash on hand.

      Microsoft is the king of this. They have the most cash stored of any company ever in the history of the world.

  22. What does Disney really have? by JoeCommodore · · Score: 1
    Most of thier "property" is still hanging on a thread thanks to the copyright extensions they sucessfully lobbied for in the past few years.

    All they have been doing recently is remakes and sad 'me-toos' of more popular computer/animation films from other companies. And the sequel much of Slashdot would really want to see (Tron) doesn't seem to be going anywhere (which might be a good thing given thier recent releass they'd probably mess it up anyway).

    --
    "Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
    1. Re:What does Disney really have? by pingveno · · Score: 1

      So sad to see Disney's profits suffering. The Incredibles and Toy Story were such flops, really just me-toos of other movies. Disneyland seems to really be suffering, too.

      --
      "it's not about aptitude, it's the way you're viewed" - Galinda
    2. Re:What does Disney really have? by JoeCommodore · · Score: 1

      Toy Story was more of a Pixar production than a Disney one, which is one of the points of buying Pixar from Jobs, without it they'd still be stuck in cell animation and cinderella sequels.

      --
      "Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
  23. The rest of the copyright industry by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apple video ipod needs content. Disney has lots of it.

    NBC/Universal, Viacom, CBS (recently divorced from Viacom), Sony (which still owns Sony BMG Records), Fox, and Warner have more. If Apple buys Disney and ABC, it could discourage the rest of the TV and movie industry from offering their works on iTMS.

  24. One step Closer by cspring007 · · Score: 2, Funny

    This would move us one step closer to the situation where you buy your entertainment from "the entertainment company" your food from "the food company" and your gas from "the gas company".
    Everything else would come from wal-mart

  25. Disney sucks anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They hardly ever produce anything worth watching.

  26. THINK people. Try to get that grey matter working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine every DVD player installed in cars for the kiddies in the back seat becomes an iPod playing Disney content in the form of videos, interactive games and educational software. When the ride is over, the kid takes the splashproof shock-resistant iPod with them where ever they go.

    The market for childrens interactive media players is about to explode. Apple is about to ride that wave.

  27. Anyone remember AOL and Time Warner? by betelgeuse68 · · Score: 1

    You had a mega content distributor and a mega content creator -- it was supposed to be soooooo synergistic.

    Yeah whatever. Life is what happens while you're busy making other plans.

    Mega mergers always suck. Plain and simple.

    I don't see the point in this. Jobs has become a power player @ Disney through Pixar (not Apple).

    Apple shouldn't be concerned about making computer animated films.

    In fact whoever is suggesting this marriage is an idiot... be the person initiating this on slashdot and/or the person on the Apple/Disney side (if such a thing exists).

    Thumbs down,
    -M

    1. Re:Anyone remember AOL and Time Warner? by Xuranova · · Score: 1

      That analogy almost works. The difference being AOL was an over inflated company(see all stock, no substance) and TW didn't stop to consider that. TW was very old school(they actually liked for things to work) as opposed to AOLs we'll figure it out at some pt routine. They were a horrible mismatch from the start. Had TW's management been able to run AOLTW instead of AOLs management running it, things probably would have been a lot better for AOLTW. Apple isn't all stock. They have a model that seems to be working and probably will for the forseeable future. (Everyone saw AOLs high prices, sucky service wasn't going to hold). Disney has a whole lot of crap that people are willing to pay for. I don't think this deal will happen but it would definitely work out a lot better than the AOLTW fiasco.

      --
      "There is no real right or wrong, just what the majority accepts at the time."
  28. Sony buys Apple! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I vote for Sony buying Apple. Then they could call the company Snapple.

    1. Re:Sony buys Apple! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Any...

    2. Re:Sony buys Apple! by rtaylor · · Score: 1

      What does every kid want for christmas? Apony!

      --
      Rod Taylor
  29. There are cheaper ways.... by seanvaandering · · Score: 1

    There are cheaper ways to be a part of the Mickey Mouse club...

  30. Doesn't make sense by wackymacs · · Score: 1

    I like speculation when it makes some sense but this is pure crap. Apple has nothing to gain from buying Disney - Just because Steve Jobs joins the board at Disney doesn't mean he wants to buy them out with Apple. Since when does a computer/electronics company buy a company that produces films? Apple can already get Disney content on iTunes without having to buy them. A more sensible thing would be for Disney to become a subsidiary of Apple but it still wouldn't make much sense for Apple.

  31. I can picture Jobs singing... by Scowler · · Score: 1

    "Yo ho ho ho, a pirate's life for me!"

  32. Magic King by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Why would Steve Jobs bother buying Disney when he can just run it from his seat on its board of Directors?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Magic King by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He doesn't own a controlling interest, just more than any other single entity. It would be quite easy for a few other holders to collude to override anything he wants to push through.

    2. Re:Magic King by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Have you ever served on a Board of Directors? Only rarely do members or the shareholders who select them "vote their shares". Most of the decisions, and the work that frames them, is nonproportional discussion, dominated by the biggest shareholders and the biggest charismas.

      Jobs' famous reality distortion field will see him leading Disney soon enough, especially with his backing by the other shareholders caught in the magic.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  33. ever noticed... by mtec · · Score: 2, Funny

    In most pictures, Mickey seems to be wearing a black mock turtleneck? No wait. That's fur... right?
    Hmmm. Maybe that isn't a turtleneck Jobs wears.

    --
    Cake or Death? Cake Please!
  34. Nothing to do with Apple by billcopc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's backpedal a bit: What thy hell would Apple do with Disney ? Companies don't just buy each other out with their spare change unless it presents a strategic or financial advantage. Now I'm no market analyst, but I would tend to think if Apple, who is still an underdog in the computer world, wanted to strengthen its foothold in the world of capitalism, they would be looking at acquiring technology or IP from smaller companies, playing corporate PacMan. They're not be big enough to play dirty like Oracle and Microsoft just yet, so they have to think constructively.

    Buying Disney would show diversity, which can also be interpreted as Apple losing focus and looking for a backup plan or exit strategy from the computer business. A company with cold feet does not fare well on wall street. Disney is not exactly in a position of great power either, it is past its prime. I think at this point Apple should focus on improving performance within its core operations, be it cost-cutting by acquiring certain part suppliers, or perhaps stepping up the marketing machine and pursuing untapped markets to significantly increase the sales volume. Anything that will give the company lasting power so that in a year or two, they will have grown and have the clout to perform more daring acquisitions. Right now a miscalculated buyout could leave Apple unprepared for things to come, sending them back into the dark ages.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
    1. Re:Nothing to do with Apple by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      Just to play devil's advocate, though I'm inclined to agree with what you say, Apple's also positioning itself as something of a digital media company. Disney-branded limited edition iPods, offering downloads of classic disney favorites on iTunes, browbeating EA sports with the newfound ESPN license to start providing OSX versions of its titles... there's lots of stuff they COULD do.

      But they could just as easily buy out Nintendo (or a merger of equals) and do lots of amazing stuff there too. Pokemon-branded iPods, Nintendo DS premium edition witth a built-in iPod... streaming media from your Macintosh to your Nintendo Revolution... maybe even use Nintendo's ties with Bandai to get a bunch of anime for the iTunes library.

      These rumors are fun to speculate about, but in the end, it probably doesn't make much sense financially (you don't dillute your shares 40-50% just to create some nifty tie-in products)

    2. Re:Nothing to do with Apple by Xaroth · · Score: 1

      ...they would be looking at acquiring technology or IP from smaller companies, playing corporate PacMan.

      I'm sure they'd rather play Corporati Damacy instead. Why just eat ghosts when you could aim to be the next King of the Cosmos? ;)

    3. Re:Nothing to do with Apple by cowscows · · Score: 1

      The thing is, Apple can probably manage to do a lot of those branding things anyways, without making huge acquisitions and throwing around giant gobs of cash. Even ignoring the fact that Steve Jobs is now on Disney's board, Apple has one of the best brands out there at the moment, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would like to ride those coattails. Cross-licensing brands and content would help both sides, it's not like Apple should have to pony up serious cash or make buy outs just to get people interested.

      Sure, there are a few companies that might be reluctant. You mentioned Nintendo, which is generally pretty independent. But I'd imagine if Nintendo was going to work out that sort of deal with anyone, Apple would be a likely candidate. It's easy to draw comparisons between them. They've even got the same two major "enemies", Sony and MS.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    4. Re:Nothing to do with Apple by Stripe7 · · Score: 1

      Same reason the SONY a hardware company owns movie studios. This is not too far of a stretch as Jobs is supposed to own like 40% of Disney.

    5. Re:Nothing to do with Apple by miller701 · · Score: 1
      Jobs owned 50.6 percent of Pixar (about 60 million shares http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=PIXR).

      There are currently 1.93 billion shares outstanding http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=DIS

      so, about 3% of DIS, a spot on the board, but not 40% of DIS

    6. Re:Nothing to do with Apple by SEE · · Score: 1

      Apple isn't just a underdog in the computer world. It's a declining computer company which fortunately has a growing music player and music distribution company in-house. Total Mac units sold, FY 1996-2000, were 17.6 million. In the next five years, 2001-2005, the number of Macs sold was 17.0 million. After backing out the iPod and iTMS sales, revenue went from $36.972 billion FY 1996-2000 to $31.938 billion 2001-2005.

      Yeah, Jobs could spend time and effort trying to grow the computer business. But given that Apple has been so richly rewarded by restructuring it to turn a profit on a shrinking userbase and turning its main attention to growth in another industry, why bother?

    7. Re:Nothing to do with Apple by billcopc · · Score: 1

      I can see where you're coming from as the two companies have striking similarities, especially when you look at their public image. They're both in the business of razor blades, yet they are blunt enough to ding you HARD on the razor itself. Apple sells iPods with the implied purpose of getting more people to shop on iTunes. Sony sells whatever shite in order to have you buy their movies, music, games and even media.

      The fallacy I see here, is that Disney ain't all that anymore. Even kids today aren't so fond of Disney, because they have more ADD-enhanced crap from Bandai. Who wants to watch a baby lion make friends when they can watch japanese robots beat each other up instead.. Plus I don't see that many adults buying iPod Videos for their kids. Yes, there would be more than a handful of Disneyphiles who would stuff their iPods full of every Disney movie, even though they own every single goddamned VHS and DVD, but despite their frightening numbers, they still don't represent a large enough market for this kind of deal.

      Who knows.. Disney is such a multi-faceted mess that Apple might see something digestible hidden in some dark corner of the empire.. or maybe this is just a rumour to fuel some failed analyst's 15 seconds of fame.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    8. Re:Nothing to do with Apple by billcopc · · Score: 1

      Not a bad point, but then why would they be so obsessed with the PPC to X86 switch if their real plan is to transition away from the computer business ? There is a dedicated (and growing) Mac user base and there probably will be for many years to come. People are getting frustrated with Windows just at the same time as Apple's offerings are getting sexier and more affordable.

      Me, a die-hard Mac hater for 3/4 of my life, I have to struggle with my conscience whenever I walk past a Mac Mini. Lots of people bought iPods, and this was their first foray into the world of Apple. They were pleased, now they're curious to try out other Apple products. When's the last time Dell did anything good with their peripherals ? Dell MP3 Jukebox ? Dell Printer ? shite! Sony who ? you mean the TV manufacturer ? ... They are coming back with great force, now isn't the time to squander the company's resources into an empire that declined three generations ago.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    9. Re:Nothing to do with Apple by SEE · · Score: 1

      Granted, Disney would be a ludicrously silly acquisition.

      Still, Apple's own estimates are that an average Mac is in service for five years. Sure, there are execptions to longevity (like the machine I'm writing this on, a Blue & White G3 tower), but an average means there are as many exceptions the other way. The result is that the FY 2005 sales spike, slightly smaller than the FY 2000 spike, probably means there were just about the same number of Macs in use 2005/09/25 as in 2000/09/25.

      That's in a world with a growing population and an overall personal computer market that has yet to see a failure to grow in year-to-year unit sales since at least the Apple II introduction.

      Apple isn't going away, and neither are Macs, but the same can be said for IBM and mainframes. Based on the last ten years, it's not where future company growth is going to come from, even as it remains an important and quite profitable part of the business.

  35. Imagine the possibilities by CloakedKnight · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Imagine every iPod owner with kids decides to purchase the future KidPod splashproof shock-resistant interactive media player featuring downloaded Disney content (videos, games, educational software), and you begin to see the potential. Every DVD player on the back of a car seat is a potential future KidPod media player. Unlike the delicate and limited DVD players of old (aka today), the sturdy KidPod will be equally at home on the stroller, on the school bus, on the subway, and anywhere your kid goes. The childrens portable interactive media player market is going to explode soon , and Apple might just be planning on taking the lead.

    1. Re:Imagine the possibilities by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      None of which requires a purchase of Disney. If you ask me, disney would be more desperate to be "the company" that would provide that content than apple desperate to get disney on their kidpod. Apple has the upper hand, they can go to NBC, CBS, Nickelodian and shop their wares. Disney has only one apple.

  36. Did apple ever buy pixar? by fermion · · Score: 1
    Job wsa in charge of Pixar and Apple, but he never pushed the merger.

    Apple appears to prefer flexibility as opposed to monolithic growth. For example, the could easily buy a production and distribution facility to make the new intel machines, say Gateway, but they have not done so. Apple has become a design firm, and they seem to want to stick to that core competency. They are doing some simple things, like iTunes and .MaC to support the customers, but one would how buying disney would be good for customers. Customers want to be able to buy content from anyone.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  37. what about snow white? by Agrippa · · Score: 3, Funny

    If Apple buys Disney, do you think they will digitally revamp Snow White so that the witch gives her a poisoned melon instead of a poisoned apple? Maybe they can bring Lucas on board for that, he's good at making your favorite classic movies better through technology.

    .agrippa.

    1. Re:what about snow white? by primenerd · · Score: 1

      Heh.
      At first I thought you were refering to the Snow White IDL that Apple used to use.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White_design_lan guage

      --
      AUGAUUUGCGCACAUAUCUCAGCGAAUGAAAGGGAUUAA
    2. Re:what about snow white? by iphayd · · Score: 1

      Dopey shot first!

    3. Re:what about snow white? by Cyno · · Score: 1

      No, they'd make her eat a beatle.

  38. Great Now My Kid will have to buy an iPod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can assume that Jobs will only release my child's favorite Disney Movies for iPod. BE fraid be very afraid

  39. Sony a better choice by blamanj · · Score: 1

    While I don't think it's likely to happen, Apple would be far better off buying Sony than Disney. In addition to getting the media assets that Sony has (which are comparable to Disney's), they'd also be expanding their consumer electronics space.

    Imagine VAIOs running OS X, Trinitrons that were WiFi/computer-enabled, a giant music library instantly available in iTunes, etc.

    1. Re:Sony a better choice by aztec+rain+god · · Score: 1

      That actually makes some sense to me. Sony's cheaper than Disney, and they'd be buying less debt. But isn't merging content and consumer electronics what got Sony into the mess that its in now? (well, that and its corporate culture)
      It seems like business has this cyclicality where it goes back and forth between small is beautiful and bigger is better.

      --
      Sig cannot be found.
  40. Ha ha ha...the tables turn. by llthomps · · Score: 1

    I seem to remember a time when yearly "Disney buys Apple" rumors would pop up.

    Obviously, those were all wrong, so I'm going to assume this speculation is wildly off the mark.

  41. Learn from Sony's mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Besides, many regard Sony's entry into the Content business as a disaster. A company once respected for stylish and high quality electronics, making tape decks and VCRs, goes out and acquires a division that produces content. Now the content division blames the electronics division for contributing to piracy, leading to all sorts of internal politics, bickering, and inefficiency. Sony misses the boat on hard drive based mp3 players, leaving an opening for Apple to slide in to conquer the market. Basically, the interests of producers of hardware and content are at odds. It would be a bad move for Apple.

  42. I'll take that bait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Booth was an ACTOR. After he shot Lincoln, he jumped to the stage and shouted "Sic Semper Tyrannis!" Now who but some kind of arrogant actor would kill the Emancipator and then jump on stage to shout in Latin the state motto of Virginia? Lest we veer off subject, remember actors are merely content providers. That's a long way from being a patriot. And your spelling of the word sense is not very heroic.

    1. Re:I'll take that bait by PunkOfLinux · · Score: 1

      What the hell's that MEAN anyway???

    2. Re:I'll take that bait by MsGeek · · Score: 1

      "Thus, always, to tyrants."

      The flag of Virginia shows a woman standing over the body of a felled man. The man's crown has come off, showing that he was a king who has been toppled.

      The imagery of that flag sometimes makes me think about what George W. Bush's fate would be if the world was just. It isn't. So it won't happen. :P

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
  43. Re:In other news... by josepuerto · · Score: 0

    Remember when Comcast tried to buy Disney? Disney will NEVER sell the company to Apple.

  44. The good thing by SoulRider · · Score: 1

    that could happen if Apple gets Disney is that an opponent to DRM (Jobs claims piracy cannot be solved throught technological means but by giving the customer what they want, and they begrudgingly put DRM into iTunes and still gave us a way to circumvent it), will now own one of the biggest backers of DRM.

  45. Is Apple looking to buy Disney? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No.

  46. ACME? by polemon · · Score: 1

    Hmm, seens like the ACME-Idea isn't that far away anymore...

    --
    EOF
  47. I hope not. by Sippan · · Score: 1
    Apple to me stands for making high quality products that are wonderful to use and that surpass almost all similar manufacturers.

    For the love of God do not become responsible for Disney's products.

    --
    Frog blast the vent core.
  48. Does this mean... by SoulRider · · Score: 1

    I am going to be able to watch "Thats So Raven" on my iPod. I am all atingle!

    1. Re:Does this mean... by Starbucker79 · · Score: 1

      Ashamed as I may be to admit knowing this, but That's So Raven was one of the first shows available on iTunes. Your snark is well-placed, but your facts need a bit of work.

    2. Re:Does this mean... by Indiana+Joe · · Score: 1

      You already can.

      --
      I can't decide if this post is interesting, funny, insightful, or flamebait.
  49. A. They have irregular performance, boom/bust by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    Why does Apple keep so much cash on hand?

    Because their performance is so irregular, they go from boom to bust, and sometimes spend years at the "beleagured" end of the business spectrum. The cash lets them comfortably weather the bad times until the next "insanely great" product brings in truckloads of profit. Think safety net.

  50. The real question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would be: Is an acquisition even neccessary?

    Since control of Disney is already in Apple's pocket... why over-extend Apples bank book to purchase Disney and lose NBC content? I think Jobs is smart enough to leave the situation as is and profit from it without the capital outlay.

    1. Re:The real question... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Since control of Disney is already in Apple's pocket...

      Steve Jobs holds 7% of Disney. I would hardly call that control of Disney.

  51. Now, that's a theory by rfernand79 · · Score: 1
    Well, it does seem unlikely.

    Apple's business 1: Computers
    Apple's business 2: Digital content (music, video)

    Buying Disney gets them a lot of other goodies and seems compatible with their second business line. On these lines, they may very well consider buying Comcast, too.

    However... would you really risk your business lines by expanding to some other areas for which you have NO experience? Apple's success with the iPod and the whole online content thing was a calculated risk. They had the tools and the talent. Producing "Mickey Mouse's runaway iPod" shorts... unlikely. True, Jobs CEO'd Pixar, but let's not forget Pixar's success is linked to Lasseter's talent, not Jobs'.

    Apple is good at what they do, and they succeeded at entering a new, closely-related business line. That doesn't mean they can jump into anything. It seems as unlikely as Apple buying Gap, just because Jobs served on the board.

  52. Extrapolate Steve Jobs to Carl Icahn... by postbigbang · · Score: 1

    Jobs isn't interested in muddying up Apple's revenue streams by merging with Disney. He'd gain the wrath of the RIAA and all of his billion-selling iTunes partners. But is Disney too big? Too bloated? Not producing revenues like they should? Jobs votes more shares than anyone in each organization. Think about that.

    I think that Jobs doesn't rock the boat; Icahn at least had some business sense in trying to break up TW, not that I agree necessarily with his motives (make Carl richer).... his methods would likely increase all shareholder value of TW shareholders by realigning business units (splits, tracking stocks, new issues) in a burgeoning market that's turning bull right now. There's nothing inherently wrong with shareholder value increase, when it's done ethically. That's why, and although I abhor SBC/ATT, I understand why they're up on Capitol Hill bribing their way back into as many monopolistic practices as they can. They make money by doing it. I doubt anyone has the guts to stop them, and that's a bad thing, but a reality right now.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    1. Re:Extrapolate Steve Jobs to Carl Icahn... by thogard · · Score: 1

      If Apple owns Disney and Sony owns MGM then the MPAA's days could be numbered since the two of them don't agree with how the MPAA is trying to control new media. It might be a great way to pull a large number of high dollar useless fat cats out of the movie money train.

    2. Re:Extrapolate Steve Jobs to Carl Icahn... by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      I might enjoy the chaos that would ensue, but it could also get worse, not better. The reason that Jobs got the blessing of the RIAA to make the iTunes phenomenon work is that he methodically respects rights in how iTunes works and is deployed.

      Apple's core Mac operating system becomes more distant now from OSS fundamentals and philosophies as time goes on. Numerous articles cite Apple's drift from core OpenDarwin into something that's actually little known-- just based on Mach and the Darwin leg. It's not a stretch to reason additionally that the trusted computing environment that Intel had (and IBM had no analog of) was the reason for the jump from the PPC family to Intel's-- seemingly a huge leap. It's not when you consider that the trusted environment eventually leads to DRM-protected home media infrastructure that makes the media rights holders very happy-- little conflict with them at all.

      A joiner between the two doesn't change any number of fundamentals, however: Pixar/Disney media holdings continue to be protected through the convergence era.... despite others that are vociferous about what asset protection means. This leads me to further believe that a distance between Apple's philosophies of shareholder value vs Disney/Pixar's continue to work very well in an unmerged future. I'm not sure that I'd have much respect for a computer system with Mickey's logo on it... despite how humorous that might be. So, the joiner doesn't work for me for a long list of reasons.

      Instead, I'd like to see Apple play their hands more frequently regarding just how deeply they can OEM their products into successful, high-return media devices along either iTunes or Mac product lines. Mac-powered HDTVs and media centers could become quite the rage if they can add 'Tivo-like' functionality to the core offerings, leveraging their media distribution smarts with home devices that become empowered by Apple hardware/software/DRM guts. Then, Apple domination in new markets could become quite powerful.... for better and worse.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  53. ALL creative content?? by tinrobot · · Score: 1

    ...now have essentially Stalinist control over ALL of Disney's creative...

    Uhhh - Lasseter and Catmull are in charge of the animation studio. They have creative control over any animated movies produced by Disney and they have an influence on theme parks that use the movies as the basis for attractions.

    Disney, however, is a LOT more than just the animation studio. They do live action, television, sports, etc... Lasseter and Catmull do not control ABC, ESPN, live action films, or any of the many other creative entities owned by Disney.

    Hardly Stalinist.

    1. Re:ALL creative content?? by menacing_cheese · · Score: 1

      Not only that but Disney's film studios aren't even the largest part of their business. The cable/broadcast networks as well as their resorts/theme parks are both bigger segments within Disney then the studios. In fact the only portion of their business that is smaller than the studios is the consumer products division. So saying the guys who run the animation studio run Disney as a whole is a bit of stretch.

  54. Job's two trick pony by ElitistWhiner · · Score: 1


    The trick is to abstract the model, sell the franchise and collect fee in the management of the product. Job's could do that...

    Unless Jobs productized, commoditized Disney (ala Pixar) there will be no incentive for Apple to burden itself with a labor intensive Hospitality business of today's Disney.

    Take the Hospitality franchise away and Disney could transition Online to gateway to RealWorld hospitality destinations. Jobs could do that trick for Disney. Disney theme parks would be dinosaurs of an analog time.

  55. MOD PARENT UP - FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nuff said

  56. Not Gonna Happen by PipianJ · · Score: 1

    Apple's already got enough problems with Apple Corps. v. Apple Computers.

    You think they'd risk delving even further into violating that settlement? (Disney owns the Buena Vista Music Group. Granted, they don't distribute their own music, but it'd still be even closer to an open-and-shut-case against Apple if this happened.

  57. Why doesnt one of them buy EMI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its a hold-out against iTMS, and holds the Beatles back catalogue; of declining value as the original recordings are dropping out of copyright. Issued a profits warning last year, has shopped for a merger with Warner in the recent past.

    Its peanuts in comparison to Disney. Their turnover in 2005 was £2bn (lets call it $3bn US). Thats less than Apple's *profit* for the same year.

    Its probably a better fit to Disney though, together they'd have a more compelling package of titles to market to iTMS by combining music and video.

  58. What are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "He needs to do his taxes and turbotax and other software is only available for windows now even if the marketshare is higher."

    TurboTax is available for the Mac. The Mac version isn't as nice, but since the rest of the software isn't as nice on the PC, it pretty much balances out.

    Darwine should be working on the Intel macs soon, and there will be an explosion in VM software. I wouldn't worry about it.

    1. Re:What are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  59. Interesting if you're thinking like a mogul... by jpellino · · Score: 1

    But the truth is these sorts of forced marriages only work if it's financially important to one of the companies or if there's true synergy in combining brands and products.

    Or if you're a power-hungry mogul looking to expand your empire. Steve seems not to be like that, but to make your holdings make sense becvause they do something really well. Like the Berkshire Hathaway companies - that include Helzberg Diamonds, GEICO and Dairy Queen - but really have nothing to do with each other - Jobs should and could be content to have a great Pixar, and a Great Apple, but what he can do for Disney/ABC/ESPN is not clear.

    I've always figured he did what he did for Pixar so they's stay clear of Disney - I admire what Disney does on some levels, but in control of Pixar they'd end up with a layer of acrylic on a great nugget of gold.

    Buy what you need, and do what you do best.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  60. Apple and Disney Need Distance by danaan · · Score: 1

    If anything, Apple needs to distance itself from Disney, not grow closer or merge. One of the most promising future sources of revenue for Apple right now is being the distributer for online video content as well as music. Up to this point, they've had success in getting the networks to test the waters and have shown that customers are willing to purchase TV programs at a profitable price point. The Pixar deal putting Jobs on the Disney board creates a risk for this model. Can the other Network heads expect a fair deal with equal exposure and terms on the iTunes Store? They're scared with the whole new world of distribution already. Buying Disney would only make this situation that much worse.

  61. Great idea! by Xel · · Score: 1

    Creating content, distribution AND the products to view it? Great idea! its working gangbusters for Sony...

    --
    "Eagles may soar, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines."
  62. What proprietary hardware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not very proprietary. They've used off the shelf parts for much of the units for over a decade.

    Sure they use their own motherboard, and often a special power supply, but so do many of the big names.

    Personally I've run into more issues with Compaq/HP systems being proprietary than on Apple branded units.

    1. Re:What proprietary hardware? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Not very proprietary. They've used off the shelf parts for much of the units for over a decade.

      Sure they use their own motherboard, and often a special power supply, but so do many of the big names.


      What off the shelf parts? Sure, they grab a stick of ram here, a harddrive there, but the rest is pretty much motherboards with integrated everything, in a highly non-standard case. Pretty much the only thing you can easily upgrade or replace in a Mac is the ram and the harddrive, unless you have a PowerMac. Sure, many PC manufacturers are guilty of the same crap too, but you can always build or buy a PC with off the shelf parts if you want.

    2. Re:What proprietary hardware? by arminw · · Score: 1

      ....but you can always build or buy a PC with off the shelf parts if you want......

      You can always build your own car from parts bought from the JC Whitney catalog. Most people will buy a ready made car and also a ready made computer. Modern cars and computers are more than just a thrown together collection of parts. A major reason why Apple's computers "just work"(tm) is that the whole SYSTEM, hardware and software are designed, built and tested as an integrated whole. In Windows systems, at least the manufacturer installs Windows and makes sure it at least boots. If you build your own hardware box, you may have to dork with it for a while until the software you're installing works correctly. That of course is fun for a lot of us here on /. and gives a feeling triumph and accomplishment over gremlins and the ever present activity of Murphy's Laws. Most people however don't have the expertise, the spare time to spend nor particularly enjoy wrestling with a computer that won't boot or otherwise misbehaves.

      --
      All theory is gray
  63. What about Disney aquiring the iTunes part only? by Teancum · · Score: 1

    I completely agree here. Apple Computers and Disney are so radically different in the kinds of industry that they serve in, that by combining the two companies you will be destroying both of them. Of course, I hardly thought that aquiring ABC Television by Disney was a good idea either, but at least both were in the business of delivering content to people that sit on their behinds and watch a light display in front of them.

    Of course with Apple computer.... I guess they do the same thing, after a sort.

    Still, the culture differences between Apple and Disney are quite a bit different. Of course if Apple spun off its iTunes store and stuck with merely manufacturing of computer equipment, with the iTunes stuff going to Disney... that might make some huge since and something that Disney has considerable experience in working with. Disney has had its own record label for decades now and is in the business of delivering content of that nature.

  64. Not worthy of a rumor site by kitzilla · · Score: 1

    This rumor is so nebulous and unfounded that it's not even making the rounds at the most wild-wyed Mac fanboy rumor sites.

    --
    This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
  65. A full-on takeover of Disney... by MsGeek · · Score: 1

    ...would just be the other shoe dropping.

    Think of history. Gil Amelio buys NeXT for technology to move The Rhapsody Project (next generation Mac OS) forward. He gets The Steve on the Board Of Directors as part of the bargain. Six months later, Amelio is out on his ass, and The Steve is iCEO.

    I think that Disney will be harder for The Steve to assimilate than Apple was. I give it two years on the outside. Just two years.

    Oh yeah, and for the naysayers who were talking about how Apple didn't swallow Pixar even though The Steve is CEO of both companies: The Steve owned Pixar before he was invited back to Apple.

    Two years on the outside, folks. My fearless prediction.

    And one other thing: Dvorak has been wrong before on many things. He is so wrong it's not funny on Apple ditching Mac OS X for Windows Vista. You *will* see Windows Vista running in virtualization as a guest OS on a Mac OS X host OS, you *may* see Apple selling Windows Vista for dual-boot as an option for game junkies, but you will *never* see abandonment of Mac OS X. It's The Steve's baby. His favorite to boot. I am completely serious about this.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
  66. future? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can see the future.. Apple buys Disney, Sony buys Apple, WB buys Sony.. MS buys WB, Shell buys MS, Bush buys Shell.. and we all become slaves for the King George! OMG!

  67. Probably a Bad Idea by monoqlith · · Score: 1

    Why would Apple want to embark on the road of media conglomeration? They are a technology company, with a nascent retail business for music and computer goods. They don't manufacture content, nor do I see a reason why they should start doing so. Just because the founder of a company is multi-faceted does not mean his company is. Moreover, a merger of this sort would require much consideration about risks- risks that I see harming both Apple and Disney if they are taken. It would be a rash idea for Apple to start taking steps towards becoming a huge conglomerate. I see that it would seriously harm their efficiency and effectiveness in the technology market. Why would the tightly managed, neatly integrated technology company want to introduce the complexity of manufacturing content into its workflow, other than for monopolistic purposes? That sounds like it would be Apple biting off more than it can chew. Better to over-extend the CEO than to over-extend the entire corporate structure. Apple is good at technology. Disney is good(?) at content. Apple should not buy Disney for the same reason that Apple and Pixar should not merge. They are two distinct businesses with two different missions, who specialize in two completely different areas of the market. As long as they can cooperate effectively as separate entities, they should remain separate entities.

  68. Where are the Nazis? by dafing · · Score: 1

    Holy heck mate, check your posts! .MaC? lol.
    If you are learning English as a second language, its still not hard to use a spell checker, they always get the job done!

    --
    --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
  69. Re:Makes sense by pingveno · · Score: 1

    Really? I never heard of this precipitate drop in desktop sales. People need word processors, spreadsheets, a place to buy the music they put on their iPod-ish device, programming, downloading their Linux ISO's & burning them to CD's, having a calendar, and many other things that I can't think of right now. And that "some device for video/e-mail"? Desktop computer. Laptops are expensive (I'm typing on a 2,000 dollar one right now) without the same amount of value. The desktop computer isn't going away any time soon.

    --
    "it's not about aptitude, it's the way you're viewed" - Galinda
  70. Apple to buy Disney? by kahrytan · · Score: 1

    If such a buyout was possible, it would provide several benefits.

    Disney owns ABC and ESPN. This is a full set of tv stations and radio stations. They are ABC, Family Channel, Disney Channel, and ESPN. Disney also owns couple movie companies (Miramax, Touchstone) too. This would provide alot of media content for iTunes.

    Disney also owns large stakes in Lifetime Entertainment Services, A&E Television Networks and E! Networks.

    You people assume that such a buyout would merge the two companies. That is not true. Apple could buy Disney and make it subsidary of Apple Computer, Inc. Apple does own other companies like Filemaker, Inc is one such company.

    This type of buyout would not stir up an antitrust suit with any President in office. Apple Computer does not bully or strong arm other companies. They tend to care more about it's customers then Microsoft cares about it's customers.

    On the other hand, a buyout such as this is highly unlikly but not out of the question.

    Sources:
    Disney Corporation
    Filemaker, Inc.

    --
    \
  71. Why should... by God+of+Lemmings · · Score: 1

    Steve Job's buy, when he can get the Mouse for free?
    Look, Apple purchased NeXT, Apple became Steve's Company...
    Disney purchased Pixar, well, look at that, Steve is now
    majority stockholder.... hrm.......... The question is,
    how long until he starts replacing the rest of the old
    board members with his people?

    --
    Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
  72. How long ago was it..... by palndron · · Score: 1

    that the common rumor was Disney buying Apple? Kind of funny how things change.

    --
    a man, a plan, a canal, panama
  73. Apple looking to buy SGI? by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

    Given its past purchases of Pixar and Nothing Real, this wouldn't surprise me. It'd really give Apple an "in" to contracts in government/defense and academia, and strengthen their legitimacy in high-performance computing (Xserve really isn't enough). Plus they could have the most the talented computer scientists on the planet working on Quartz, optimizing mpeg4 and refining Renderman among other Apple graphics software. I'd expect SGI's entire workstation division to be dumped (unless Apple wants to sell PC's), but they'd probably maintain the mainframe product lines and introduce some higher-end intel Mac server items. Apple's been trying to corner the pro-graphics market for a while with Shake, Final Cut Pro and Renderman... buying SGI would help complete that.

    1. Re:Apple looking to buy SGI? by Foerstner · · Score: 1

      past purchases of Pixar

      Apple never bought Pixar. Pixar was an independent company until it was purchased by Disney this year. Nor does Apple own Renderman; it's still a Pixar product.

      --
      The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
    2. Re:Apple looking to buy SGI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow, you are clueless.

      most of SGI's great brains left a long time ago. They haven't had a product that grew their market in a decade.

      Pixar's software is available on the mac, but most renderman customers run it on linux.

  74. Are ipods going to be edged out by cell phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As cell phones get more powerful, with more memory and battery life, they will eventually be able to replace iPods. Where will Apple's market cap go?

  75. Ex Disney Employee by bombadillo · · Score: 1

    I worked at Disney from the 95 to 2000 when I was in high school and college. A lot of change occured at Disney during the 90's. When I left it seemed like a lot of the "Disney Magic" had left. In 95 a disney job was one of the highest paid hourly jobs in Central FL. In 2000 a Disney job was one of the lowest paying jobs. The employees weren't as proud of the company and this was pretty evident to me as I worked seasonal. Eisner really screwed the company over for short term goals in the 90's. Hopefully Jobs will take over Disney and restore its glory.

  76. Debt-free operations by Foerstner · · Score: 1

    Apple is debt-free, or very nearly so. Being able to pay for R&D without having to issue bonds is great for a technology company. The technology sector is fond of boom-bust cycles; get caught in a bust with a large debt load, and you're sunk. Whenever the next iPod-type idea comes along, Apple will be able to pour money into it without hesitation.

    For similar reasons, Microsoft also had a huge cash stockpile. Theirs was, IIRC, several times the size of Apple's today. They were forced to pay a dividend, because no conceivable expense could ever call for such a horde.

    --
    The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
  77. Merger mistakes by bmh129 · · Score: 1

    Didn't AOL and Time Warner teach shareholders anything? Old media and new media don't mix on Wall Street. It's better to stick with partnerships. Of course, if the insiders are looking to short sell their shares, they could get nice and rich off a potential fiasco as this. However, they risk becoming roommates with Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom fiasco fame.

  78. Apple Should not buy disney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The current state of disney could be used to solve the problem of renewable energy, Here's how. All we need to do is attach a generator to the head of walt disney in his grave. Considering the absolute betrayal of everything Walt Disney stood for and the complete prostitution of his company which used to be a leader in Animation and tasteful entertainment for both adults and children, Walt Disney is turning in his grave, and the rate is accelerating. If we allow Pixar to fix Disney and restore quality to the franchise, we may never be able to take advantage of this plentiful power source.

  79. Redhat or Novell by sgent · · Score: 1

    Redhat market cap is 4.7B, Novell is 3.75B. I see a lot more synergy with those and expanding apple into the enterprise than I do with buying Disney. Corporate push podcasts built on SLES has interesting possibilities. TiVO at 0.5B, XM Radio at 5B or Sirius @ 7B could make sense if they want to expand their media offerings. Any of the above make some sort of sense. I'm sure their are dozen's of others I've left out; however, Disney isn't one of them.

  80. More like a merger by Belseth · · Score: 1

    The aquisition of Pixar more closely resembled a merger. It was a sale mostly because the Pixar holders got Disney stock. The assets were merged though. Pixar is acting as an independent company but Disney has access to the talent pool. If Disney and Apple joined it would probably be a more formalized merger since both companies are of a similar size. There'd be a stock value placed on the joined company and the share holders would recieve the new company stock. It actually could be a win win for all since Apple stock has done really well lately and Disney's stock is expected to do well with Pixar on board. What is to be gained? Content. Suddenly all those Disney films that were retired can be released on the iPod. Not to mention decades of Disney TV programming. The companies are complimentary and don't compete so it's a good fit. Hurting deals with other content sources for iPod? Entertainment isn't a bunch of warring camps. iPod is a great revenue stream. If the Devil himself had come up with iPod they'd be lined up around the block to sell him content. Disney gains direct access to technology and Apple gains content. The combined company could pose a serious threat to Microsoft since they already have under one roof what Microsoft is trying to build. All they lack is an Xbox style gaming system to attack them on every front. With the rep they have now Apple could pose a serious threat to gaming. Imagine they start a gaming division through the Pixar wing to develope games. Keep a lot of them family friendly using the Disney name. Keep the bulk of the games for the under 18 crowd so they are seen as family safe but still make the games challenging and fun with stunning graphics. The combined company could be terrifying and would be involved in virtually every aspect of entertainment. If they didn't loose focas and blow it they would wind up being the 800lb gorilla.

  81. Sone had about as much to do with the webcawler's by crovira · · Score: 1

    success as Gwen Stefani. Meaning NOTHING.

    Sure they helped with the funding, but only after the director had convinced them. And even at that, they were lucky that it didn't pull a Jaws II or worse a Jaws 3D.

    I'm sorry but I seriously doubt any of the in-house accountants were glad they spent a dime.

    Why should Apple buy Disney? Can they use them to sell Macs or even iPods. Lets not lose focus of what Apple's business IS.

    What about Pixar? They make great movies but that is it. They'd probably be better off working some internet distribution deals than buying Disney.

    Stop seeing synergies where there aren't any.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  82. No by celerityfm · · Score: 2, Informative

    Wouldn't a Disney acquisition eliminate the possibility of working with NBC's shows on iTunes, or working with Viacom/MTV?

    No, it would not eliminate the possibility at all. The easiest way to explain this is by looking at the wealth of shows that are produced by one conglomerate yet air on other conglomerates (and don't even get me started on syndication). Here is a short list of classics:

    House (NBC-Universal produced but airs on FOX)
    Scrubs (Produced by Disney's studio Touchstone but airs on NBC)
    Buffy/Angel (FOX produced but aired on WB and UPN)
    West Wing (AOL/Time Warner produced but airs on NBC)

    etc.

    The list goes on. The point is that just because content is produced by one conglomerate doesn't mean that the possibility of having another conglomerate distribute that content has been eliminated.

    So regardless of what happens in this case you can expect that the possibility for other congolemerate's and independent's content to appear on iTunes is still very much in play. (Note that NBC was the last network to move into a conglomerate that included production, so they are/were more likely to air content produced by other conglomerates).

    PS

    I hate using the word conglomerate here.. any other suggestions?

    --
    ...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...
  83. Re:In other news... by toddestan · · Score: 1

    Remember when Comcast tried to buy Disney? Disney will NEVER sell the company to Apple.

    It doesn't work that way. Disney is a publicly traded company, all that Apple would have to do is start buying up enough stock until they own a large enough percentage that they would effectively control the company. Steve Jobs already owns 7% of Disney as it stands now.

  84. Re:In other news... by josepuerto · · Score: 0

    well then...how come comcast didn't get disney then? i actually forget what happened. btw, could you check out my site and tell me what u think?

  85. No, no, no! Disney is going to buy Apple! by Infonaut · · Score: 1

    Amazing what a difference a few years makes, eh?

    Remember back in 2000, when the big rumor (broken by the Great Drudge) was that Disney was gonna buy Apple?

    Personally, I think Sony is going to buy Sun, so they can get into the thin client business. That's the real wave of the future.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  86. True, but by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

    True that NBC and other networks wouldn't like it, but would they have a choice in continuing to sell? A couple of years ago, all the record companies swore that they would never sell their music in an online store with eachother. Now iTunes has just that. I think that since Apple has such a captive audience with the iPod video, even if they were to buy Disney, they would continue to have TV networks buisness. They already own 7% of Disney anyway.

  87. Re:Sone had about as much to do with the webcawler by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

    Why should Apple buy Disney? Can they use them to sell Macs or even iPods

    Like you wouldn't believe. If Apple buys Disney, one could expect that within 5 years or so almost every one of the 70,000 HP/Compaq desktops used by Disney would be replaced with an Apple product, along with many of the 10,000 or so servers Disney maintains. This would be a great opportunity for Apple to be taken more seriously in the business market, and to get someone other than geeks to look at the Xserve as a viable choice for back-end stuff. Assuming Apple begins offering some kind of virtualization support for the Intel Macs in the near future, the compatibility issues involved in such a wholesale change wouldn't be nearly the problem that they would have been just a year ago. Also, HP pays Disney many, many millions of dollars each year to sponsor the Mission:Space attraction at Epcot. If Apple bought Disney, not only would they have a massive captive (and international) audience at the Disney parks to sell to, there's a good chance they'd also be chewing substantially into HP sales. HP really can't afford to take much of a hit in their sales right now, which of course will work to Apple's advantage.

    On top of all that, Disney still makes a pretty good chunk of money every year all by itself. I don't really think Apple will throw down that kind of money to buy Disney, but there are most definitely advantages to be had by doing so.

    --
    Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  88. What a waste of bandwidth by justindz · · Score: 1

    I'm glad I don't pay by the k.

    --
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
  89. Palm seems a better fit by bigpat · · Score: 1

    Buying Palm would seem a better fit. story

    It would get them back into the PDA game and more importantly it would get them into smartphones with the treo line without having to start from scratch with an ipod smartphone. And with a market cap under 2 billion for Palm, it would still leave Apple with plenty of cash for other capital expenditures or aquisistions.

    Though, with that much money they could afford to just start new development of new products and services themselves and not attempt a merging of cultures and businesses.

    1. Re:Palm seems a better fit by billcopc · · Score: 1

      I'm a bit fascinated by this point. Why wouldn't Apple want to create its own unique PDA line ? Buying Palm would only mean they can use Palm technology and PalmOS, which is probably not what Apple would want to do anyway.. just slapping a sticker on a device does not make it an "Apple product" in the sense that it's not unique, uberdesigned and hypersexy. Not to mention that Palm's build quality is absolute puke, I've broken two Tungstens in a single year and wasn't impressed with the brittle plasticcy $600 smartphones either. It just wouldn't be up to their quality standards.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    2. Re:Palm seems a better fit by bigpat · · Score: 1

      Apple would probably be better off product wise just developing its own cell phone, but I think Palm has quite a lot of prexisting business relationships which would make it easier for Apple to slip into the market. Not to mention that Palm has experience jumping through the regulatory hurdles of the FCC and other National regulatory agencies.

      So sure they could just build a new product line in house, like they did with the iPod. But sometimes it is good to go with a sure thing. And to come out with itunes software that was unlimited for Palm PDAs and smartphones would likely be pretty simple.

  90. Cuteness factor by estilos · · Score: 1

    Ok, speculation this may be, but Awww!!!
    Someone tell me how Bambi with a mac could not be the most adorable thing ever?

  91. Re:Makes sense by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

    It's not the drop in sales that matters, it's the tapering off of growth of sales. If a company's sales don't grow, they can't justify high multiples. If they can't justify high multiples, the market "corrects" them.

    What is really going to hamper growth across the board and halt growth is peak oil.

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  92. Apple Disney Merger Makes Sense by QuincyDurant · · Score: 1

    Steve Jobs is not a team player. If the Pixar deal was just to trade unknown for classy stock, why take the board seat?

    What's in it for Apple?

    1. Credibility and market share.. Disney is one of 30 Dow Jones Industrial Average components. Apple, despite its impressive successes, is still a bit of a laughing stock in some quarters, with a large "They'll never make it" reputation that has endured for decades and will die only with greybeards who like to say it.

    2. Massive, elaborate, hard-to-duplicate co-marketing relationships. These will shove the Apple brand (or are at least its products) into places they've never been. There have been many jokes about "Mickey Mouse technology" on this board--some of them quite clever--but do you doubt that a Disney-branded iPod or even iMac would light up the Christmas trees during the big selling season? Screw the low-margin corporate computer market; sell to the people.

    3. A doubled advertisng budget. Apple needs brute-force TV dollars to keep the iPod share and increase the sales of Macs. With "Intel inside," the new Disney computer (perhaps running Windows) could make one helluva splash.

    4. Four hundred new store locations worldwide. A majority of Apple sales come through its stores, and the value is $1 billion+. Granted, the Disney stores are smaller, and it would be difficult to hire that many "geniuses" quickly, but how much of genius do you have to be to sell iPods?

    5. A new outlet for Apple's creative engineering department. Despite all the heavy breathing about OS X, it is like all "innovations" on the moribund PC, more of the same shit on a different day. Faster, smaller, cheaper, better. Yawn. Disney, in its early days, had "imagineers," and was one of the most innovative companies in the world. Apple could breathe life into imagineering and its own engineering resources.

    What's in it for Disney?

    1. Profits. For a public company, they're a beautiful thing.
    2. A superstar quarterback at CEO. They need somebody to slash expenses and start anew.
    3. A technology infusion into special effects, both for movies and theme parks

    What do I know? Like everyone else, Bupkis. But I gotta believe it could happen.

  93. If Apple Buys Disney... by kp_sidekick · · Score: 1

    If Apple buys Disney, I'm buying a MAC! (Only if they promise to bring back new episodes of Kim Possible.)

    --
    "To err is human, doing it again is downright stupidity!"
  94. nope, easier solution is this by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    They just add a disclaimer (with a scrolling text) saying "only rotten apples where used in this production".
    Of'course "All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental."

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  95. Balderdash by Swift2001 · · Score: 1

    If true, this would be the end of Apple, and maybe Disney, too. This is why they shouldn't let business writers have computers. For Jobs to go along with this, he'd have to be as dumb as Steve Case. Whatever happened to Steve Case? And that AOL-Time/Warner thing was a real winner. Everything it touches turns to crap. If only they'd let Ted Turner buy back CNN, it might be watchable again. There's only one class of humans I'm really against: MBAs. Someone should exile them to some impoverished island somewhere, where they could play with Excel until they starve to death.

  96. what's worth buying at Disney? by alizard · · Score: 1
    Content that Apple can resell or give away as premiums to iPod or Mac users on any terms that interest them, with or without DRM, and as for the rest that doesn't benefit them, spin out and sell Disney operating units to the highest bidder. I don't see Apple wanting to get into the theme park business, either, though they might be interesting as new media industry players.

    It's about time Apple started looking for content providers to buy. Let's face it, the record industry is screwing them with respect to the resale of digital tracks.