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