Apple to Buy Disney

[dcentity2000]

Following the recent demotion of Micael Eisner, the man once seen as the saviour of the Walt Disney Company, rumours have exploded as to possible successors - the clear winner is Steve Jobs, current head of Apple and Pixar.

Why?

From Disney's perspective this would make sense. The volatile chairman has rescued Apple from a 0.7% market share to a 10% market share since the inception of the iMac and has erradicated debt. He is known to have been considering the move for some time - so he would be fairly easy to acquire. His introduction and the integration of Pixar and Apple would see Comcast off completely - as if Disney had been shrouded in armour.

From Jobs' point of view, it would make sense. Disney would boost Apple's position, already keen on expanding into entertainment (iLife, iPod) and would also prove to be an ideal partner to Pixar, currently seeking a distributor and investor. He is already experienced in entertainment (Pixar) and certainly has dreams and ambitions to match even the most radical CEO.

So why no announcement?

Well, as soon as you intend (officially) to do something like 'buy' a company, you must publicly announce and make a move - something that could cause problems. It is far more likely that...

Jobs be invited to take a role in Disney. This would mean that all the benefits of the merger would be present yet Disney would be wholly independant.

As usual, Jobs has declined to make any comment upon this issue at any point - just as he does with everything.

Apple has shown a history in buy-outs (neXt, Acorn, Pixar) for whatever reason - mainly, though, because Jobs fancied it.

Disney chiefs are rumoured to be considering a move to ask Jobs to take a key role, the main influence being Pixar and press coverage.

Eisner and Jobs traditionally don't get along. Just thought I'd mention that point.

 

[OnWithTheShow]

Jobs coming on board as an exec has absolutely nothing to do with apple buying disney, the companies merging, or "all the benefits of a merger, yet Disney would be wholly independent."

 

[dcentity2000]

Maybe I'm not being clear. If Jobs came onto the board, he'd be able to get nice little deals going between Disney and his two companies, to the benefit of all three. For example: more films with Pixar, more media for Apple QuickTime.

Apple buying Disney is unlikely at the end of it, although I suppose in this crazy world it *could* happen.

Here's one I found earlier:
Ooooo boy, did Michael Eisner just take a beating. So you know that Disney shareholders' meeting was today, right? And you know all about how departed directors Stan Gold and Roy Disney (yes relation) have been calling for investors to withhold their votes for Eisner's reelection to the board in order to send a message that he should step down? And you're no doubt aware that analysts were saying a 20% withholding would be a serious vote of no confidence in Eisner, while Stan 'n' Roy were hoping for 30%? Well, someone toss Eisner a parachute and a fire extinguisher, because he appears to be going down in flames; faithful viewer Jonathan was first to point out that anti-Eisner votes (well, really, the absence of pro-Eisner votes, but you get the point) hit a staggering 43%, which, according to the New York Times, Stan Gold called "an unprecedented vote of no confidence."


We're guessing that somebody needs a hug right about now.


So what does this mean in the context of the Disney-Pixar Conspiracy Theory™, the gist of which is that Steve Jobs (known to be buddy-buddy with Roy Disney) ended contract negotiations with Eisner and deprived Disney of billions of dollars in future revenues solely in order to help Roy foment anti-Eisner sentiment among the stockholders? Well, adherents to this theory are generally split into three distinct camps: those who believe Steve did it to clear the CEO position and take Eisner's place; those who think he did it in exchange for a promise of better terms in a post-Eisnerian Disney-Pixar contract; and those who figure he did it solely to screw with Eisner because he thinks the guy's a big ol' jerk. And now that Disney's board-- filled with Eisner lackeys though it may be-- can't possibly refuse to ask for Eisner's resignation without inciting mass shareholder riots, well, we figure the guy has to step down soon. Then we can see if the "Jobs as CEO of Disney" contingent were right.


Meanwhile, the evidence of Jobs's role in an anti-Eisner conspiracy continues to mount. Faithful viewer wavdancr noted that, on the eve of the big vote, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Roy Disney had stated that if Eisner steps down, "Pixar Animation Studios could have a new deal with Disney 'in a matter of weeks.'" (Ladies and gentlemen: in tonight's performance, the role of "Carrot on a Stick" will be played by Pixar. Thank you.) And folks in the "Jobs as CEO" camp are no doubt smiling knowingly at the comments of "veteran entertainment industry headhunter" Brad Marks: "Steve Jobs has already proven that it doesn't seem to matter what industry he's running a company in: He's been very effective in every regard. He could fit in very well."


Interestingly, Apple PowerMacs G3 contain hidden Mickeys, apparently just to get up Eisner's nose. (Note: G3 logo on the side of the machine, in the apple logo. Turn on its side. See? Confirmed by the Official Unofficial Hidden Mickeys Site, believe it or not )
Rich::

 

[WDSearcher]

Why do we want "more films with Pixar"? I thought the point was to get back to the heart of DISNEY animation. If Roy chose to go in that direction, he'd be giving Disney traditional animation -- and Disney CGI animation -- a big ol' slap in the face. In effect, saying, "You guys won't ever be able to be on top again, so Pixar is doing this all for you." Assuming of course that PIXAR remains on top, film after film.

I don't think that's the message Roy wants to send.

 

[Zurg]

IMHO it isn't about how a fil is animated it is about the story and Lassiter is good at story.

 

[OnWithTheShow]

Actually using your position on the board of one company to create deals with another that you own stock in against SEC regs.

 

[Chuck S]

Maybe I'm not being clear. If Jobs came onto the board, he'd be able to get nice little deals going between Disney and his two companies, to the benefit of all three. For example: more films with Pixar, more media for Apple QuickTime

Such sweetheart deals would be unethical and illegal.

 

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by Chuck S
Such sweetheart deals would be unethical and illegal.

Yup, I know - but it doesn't stop it from happening.

Jobs was a part of NExT and convinced Apple to buy it - but a sweet, legit way was quoted as the reason - to develop 'Rhapsody'

With Pixar, interestingly, Apple has developed some software pretty much for Pixar and of course, Pixar buy Apple computers. Of course there are different reasons given

The rumours were a bit extreme to begin with, but having unearthed a CNN report about Apple entering buy out negotiations with a massive record company, I think Jobs has his hands full. Recently he got a top US political figure to join his board of directors too - I actually don't think he cares too much about Disney any more, especially since he's tying Pixar up with Warner Bros for insane amounts of money AND talking about launching a strain of Pixar as a film studio in its own right to 'be a real competitor to the Disney empire'.

I think we're safe from the guy.



Rich::

 

[OnWithTheShow]

Actually most Pixar software is developed in house and actual is a product they sell to others. And they their hardware is mostly from Sun Microsystems.

 

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by OnWithTheShow
Actually most Pixar software is developed in house and actual is a product they sell to others. And they their hardware is mostly from Sun Microsystems.

I was referring to more admin computers.

Think about it - why would Apple make it so obvious? Besides, Apple hardware isn't quite up to the job yet and if they were to do such a thing, they'd be missing out on a friend making exercise with someone as huge as Sun

Interestingly, though, since Pixar's rise to fame, Apple has been doing remarkably well off of it...

Big Mountain was edited on Apple software as is the popular TV show Scrubs -- now, anyone with half a brain will tell you that in order for Mr. Big company to look at you, you have to be credible first. And up until Pixar's success, despite Apple churning out arguably better and even custom software titles, the furthest they usually got was a flash of some hardware - at a price - in a major film.

Go figure.

It makes sense. If you own two companies and they can support each other then why not? Sure, you can be moral. But if you're moral, how on earth are you at the helm of such a large company in these times?



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

Oh, and just to add - Apple is currently in buy out talks with a massive record company, so it looks like ol' Steve is comfy with acquiring just music for the time being

Rich::

 

[Snowgod]

Actually most Pixar software is developed in house and actual is a product they sell to others. And they their hardware is mostly from Sun Microsystems.

Pixar is switching to Mac OS X and will be using Power Mac G5s for its work, according to a MacNN reader who attended Apple's Uncompressed for Final Cut Pro seminar in New York on Wednesday morning. In his Keynote presentation, Apple's Don Peebeles said that Pixar has used Linux and Intel-based architecture in 2003, but that Pixar was switching to Mac OS X and G5 workstations for its production work: "Peebles went on to say that this switch was 'a move that no doubt made common CEO Steve Jobs very happy.' According to Peebles, Pixar challenged Apple to come up with a way to review HD quality video on the desktop at a reduced file size but keeping the quality. Of course the technology they developed (with Pixar) was based on Wavelet compression and named accordingly, 'Pixlet'. With this impressive technology, the new G5 systems and OS X's Unix underpinning, all the pieces were in place."

 

[dcentity2000]

Rich::