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."
Apple runs iTunes. Disney produces some content. Serious risk of antitrust action.
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.
More like "Speculation for Nerds."
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.
My vote is for Disnapple!
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:
/ Final%20Project_natalia_files/image010.jpg
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~wgst60/projects/chicago
Serving time in Aristotelean prison for violating laws of physics
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.
...and I always thought that Microsoft make Mickey mouse computer systems...
Oh well, what the hell...
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.
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.
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
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.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
Mickey Mac (with a special edition Minney mouse).
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."
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.
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
Remember when Comcast was going to buy Disney...
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
My vote is for Disnapple!
Taken.
... 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!
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!)
Monstar L
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
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.
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
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
I vote for Sony buying Apple. Then they could call the company Snapple.
There are cheaper ways to be a part of the Mickey Mouse club...
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.
"Yo ho ho ho, a pirate's life for me!"
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
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!
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hmm, seens like the ACME-Idea isn't that far away anymore...
EOF
For the love of God do not become responsible for Disney's products.
Frog blast the vent core.
I am going to be able to watch "Thats So Raven" on my iPod. I am all atingle!
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.
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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.
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.
What the hell's that MEAN anyway???
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
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."
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
"Thus, always, to tyrants."
:P
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.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
...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.
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.
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!
---
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
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.
\
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
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.
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.
that the common rumor was Disney buying Apple? Kind of funny how things change.
a man, a plan, a canal, panama
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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...
Since control of Disney is already in Apple's pocket...
Steve Jobs holds 7% of Disney. I would hardly call that control of Disney.
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.
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
I suppose it may happen. That is, of course, if nobody has a job in 2010.
cat
....but you can always build or buy a PC with off the shelf parts if you want......
/. 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.
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
All theory is gray
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.
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
....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
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.
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.
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?
Ok, speculation this may be, but Awww!!!
Someone tell me how Bambi with a mac could not be the most adorable thing ever?
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.
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
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.
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.
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!"
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..
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.
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.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Thats pretty funny, but that guy has some serious issues...
"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