Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Is Apple Looking to Buy Disney?

Posted by CmdrTaco on Sun Feb 26, 2006 09:45 AM
from the can't-imagine-why dept.
Businesses Apple
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."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Is Apple Looking to Buy Disney? 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Antitrust (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Sunday February 26 2006, @09:46AM (#14803828)
    Apple runs iTunes. Disney produces some content. Serious risk of antitrust action.
    • 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.
    • 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.

    • Re:Antitrust (Score:2, Interesting)

      by bloosheep (707371)
      Disney produces content. ABC airs content.

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

    • Re:Antitrust (Score:2, Insightful)

      by bshensky (110723)
      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 co
    • 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.

    • Re:Antitrust (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ucblockhead (63650)
      How is that different from Sony, which produces content and has an online store?

      • Re:Antitrust (Score:3, Informative)

        by The Lynxpro (657990)
        "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.

  • "News for Nerds?" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by d.corri (952075) on Sunday February 26 2006, @09:50AM (#14803837)
    More like "Speculation for Nerds."

  • But why would they? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cowscows (103644) on Sunday February 26 2006, @09:52AM (#14803843) Journal
    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.
      • 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.

  • Name the new company (Score:5, Funny)

    by Psykechan (255694) on Sunday February 26 2006, @09:54AM (#14803848)
    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:

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

  • Taking the Mickey out of computers (Score:5, Funny)

    by HermanAB (661181) on Sunday February 26 2006, @09:59AM (#14803861)
    ...and I always thought that Microsoft make Mickey mouse computer systems...
  • 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.

    • One is television, movies, theme parks and merchandising.

      In other words, DIS is already a conglomerate.

    • 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 sy
    • 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.
    • 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?
    • 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.

  • I like the way this analyst is thinking! (Score:5, Funny)

    by wfberg (24378) on Sunday February 26 2006, @10:03AM (#14803869)
    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!"
  • 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.

  • No chance of Apple buying Disney..... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by postbigbang (761081) on Sunday February 26 2006, @10:24AM (#14803925)
    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.
  • 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 [littlegreenfootballs.com]

    • 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.

  • I could of sworn i saw a similar one called AOL-Timewarner
  • 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!)
    • 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 reason
  • 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).

  • 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

  • Sony buys Apple! (Score:2, Funny)

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

  • ever noticed... (Score:3, Funny)

    by mtec (572168) on Sunday February 26 2006, @11:15AM (#14804099)
    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.

  • Nothing to do with Apple (Score:4, Insightful)

    by billcopc (196330) <vrillco@yahoo.com> on Sunday February 26 2006, @11:16AM (#14804101) Homepage
    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.
  • 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. Th
  • 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 cust

  • what about snow white? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Agrippa (111029) on Sunday February 26 2006, @11:32AM (#14804169)
    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.

  • No (Score:3, Informative)

    by celerityfm (181760) on Sunday February 26 2006, @06:35PM (#14805681) Journal
    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?

    • Re:Mating of dinosaurs (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Shivetya (243324) <shivetya@noSpAM.archonon.com> on Sunday February 26 2006, @09:57AM (#14803856) Homepage
      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.

      • Re:Mating of dinosaurs (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cowscows (103644) on Sunday February 26 2006, @10:02AM (#14803868) Journal
        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.

    • 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 t

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.