Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Apple

Disney Buys Pixar 461

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the not-just-for-rumor-mills-anymore dept.
BlueDjinn writes to tell us that it appears a great deal of speculation over Disney's buyout of Pixar Animation Studios is in fact true. From the article: "[Pixar] is set to meet tomorrow to approve the company's $7bn (£3.9bn) takeover by Disney. The all-share deal will make Steve Jobs, the chief executive of Apple, around $3.5bn and the single largest shareholder in Disney. Jobs created Pixar in 1986 when he paid $10m for the computer animations division of Lucasfilm, owned by Star Wars creator George Lucas."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Disney Buys Pixar

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22, 2006 @07:25AM (#14531871)
    Nobody deserves a few billion bucks more than he does, the way I figure it. If he manages to pull Disney out of their spiral of mediocrity, he'll have earned every penny...
  • by EVil Lawyer (947367) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @07:28AM (#14531877)
    It will be interesting to see to what extent Jobs tries to "bundle" products, with the new market-power. For instance, will Disney-related animation software for children be available only for the Mac platform? Will a Disney DVD be included with the future iMac mini PVR/media box/whatever? etc.
  • Lamp (Score:5, Interesting)

    by QBasicer (781745) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @07:30AM (#14531883) Homepage Journal
    Hopefully they won't do away with that Pixar lamp, I kind liked the little guy.
  • Might be OK (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nighty5 (615965) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @07:37AM (#14531898)
    As slashdot sees Disney as mostly evil, it should be noted that most of the sceptical activities of Disney can be attributed to one man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Eisner [wikipedia.org].

    I have a good feeling about the new CEO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Iger [wikipedia.org]

    Read up on these completely different management styles and then take a look at Disney again. Iger was responsible for talks to continue with Pixar, so its no suprise that it might lead to this.
  • Re:Quelle Horreur (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tcdk (173945) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @07:47AM (#14531922) Homepage Journal
    Ah, beat me to it! But let me echo it - I just have to:

    Nooooooooooooooooooooo!

    My son is two and a half and he's very much into animated movies. Nemo, Shrek (1+2), Toy Story (1+2), Winnie the Pooh (tons), Ice Age, Robots, etc, etc. Some of it a bit scary, so we are always by his side, so I've seen these movies a bazillion times.

    The ones that last (both for us as adults and for him) are the Pixar ones. You can watch these movies again and again and they stay funny, and you can find new deepts in them. The disney ones are usually okay, but they always play the emotion card a bit heavily, which gets old really fast (dreamworks and fox is rather uneven, but usually okay, too).
  • by jcr (53032) <.jcr. .at. .mac.com.> on Sunday January 22, 2006 @07:51AM (#14531931) Journal
    If it looks like Disney's paying attention to what the Pixar people tell them, then I'll be buying Disney shares this summer. The real key for Disney Animation is John Lasseter. If they put him in charge, expect great movies.

    As for the business side of things, I hope this means we'll see ALL of the Disney archives available on line. I'll pay two bucks for Steamboat Willie on my iPod, and there's a whole lot of other classics I'd love to see again.

    -jcr
  • by ottffssent (18387) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @08:10AM (#14531971)
    This deal doesn't make Jobs $3.5bn, as the article claims. It barely makes him any money at all.

    Pixar's market cap is just a hair under $7bn, about half of which Jobs owns. Disney is buying all $7bn worth of Pixar stock with $7bn worth of Disney stock. So Jobs isn't making any money, he's just changing the name on part of his stock portfolio (Disney's buy is a bit above market value for Pixar, so he does make SOME money, on the order of 1% of the $3.5bn the article mentions). He's also going from being a 50% owner of a $7bn company to a 14% owner of a $50bn company.

    So maybe Jobs thinks he can get in and infect Disney with Pixarness and save it. Maybe he just wants to cash out and do something else, and figures he can sell 14% of Disney a lot easier than he can sell half of Pixer. Could be he thinks Pixar will do better with Disney behind it than with Disney as an enemy. Possibly there's another explanation. Let the speculation continue - we'll know in a few years what the plan was and whether it worked or not.
  • by sgant (178166) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @08:18AM (#14531993) Homepage Journal
    Is Disney going to keep selling PRman and PRman for Maya plug-ins? Will Catmull continue on with them? What's this all mean for Renderman? Will the software side split off into their own business?

    I should say that the golden age of CG movies are now over. Now come the crap movies...the "me too" movies.

    Honestly, has anyone really seen anything coming out that even remotely looks interesting? Chicken Little(already out last year)? Ice Age 2? Cars? Open Season? Over the Hedge? Any of these really grabbing you? How about Valiant(also out I believe...or did it go straight to video)? Or The Ant Bully? These are all coming out in the next few months. Have I missed any? Oh, forgot Hoodwinked, and Monster House.

    Ah, the old Hollywood adage. If you can't make a buck with quality, then make it with quantity. "Teh peoples want teh CG! We gives them teh CG!"
  • by QuatermassX (808146) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @08:18AM (#14531995) Homepage
    Although people might bemoan the takeover of one of the brightest purveyors of mainstream American filmmaking by the almighty Mouse, I can' help but think this is a good thing for all involved. Pixar has reached the pinnacle of their influence in the industry through a series of (mostly) brilliant hit films. I'm sure Jobs and Lassiter think the only way for their company to grow is to grow outward - take over the Mouse and whip it into shape. Jobs performed miracles with Apple. I really hope he and John LAssiter can bring intelligent and fun pop moviemaking back to Disney. And I would think this puts his other venture, Apple, into very sure waters in the content distribution marketplace. With whom does Disney partner now? I'm damn curious to see how it all shakes out!
  • Re:this sucks (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hope Thelps (322083) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @08:25AM (#14532011)
    As Jobs is still the largest stockholder of the company, how many changes will really take place?

    Unless I've totally misread the story, Disney will now be the sole owner of Pixar. Jobs will now (not still) be the single largest shareholder in Disney. That doesn't mean that he necessarily has the power to change its entrenched culture. I doubt he has anything like enough of a shreholding to replace the existing management, or to plausibly theaten to.
  • by mrchaotica (681592) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @08:29AM (#14532023)
    ...and that's what's so ominous about this. Between Disney and Apple, Steve Jobs is shaping up to be a bigger DRM lord than Bill Gates.
  • Re:this sucks (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Voltageaav (798022) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @08:31AM (#14532027) Homepage
    Reguardless, he'll still have clout, and there's been talk of him being put on the board of Directors. http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan200 6/nf20060120_2325_db016.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily [businessweek.com]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22, 2006 @08:53AM (#14532084)
    So, is Disney buying Pixar to incorporate their technology and mine their library of characters for licensing, or is Pixar infecting Disney with their understanding of the need for story to take priority over marketing? Given the nauseating uses to which Disney has put the Muppets, I am betting on the former. *sigh*

    An apocryphal comment that I heard years ago: the "flavor" of Disney's corporate products was so numbing and restrictive that creative types within Disney referred to the place as "Mauschwitz." :-)

    Oops, does Godwin's Law apply to SlashDot? If so, the discussion is over, move along to the next article, nothing to read here....
  • Re:this sucks (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Heembo (916647) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @08:55AM (#14532090) Journal
    More like Pixar employees running amok around Disney, with Jobs as the largest shareholder as their spirit guide. They are going to take over, just like the Next-tians took over Apples software division when Jobs returned. I For One, Welcome Jobs As Our Media Overlord.
  • by mrchaotica (681592) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @09:00AM (#14532101)
    Didn't you hear about "Antz", the knock-off of "A Bug's Life"?
    Are you kidding? "A Bug's Life" was a knock-off of "Antz"! "A Bug's Life" was just a normal shallow Disney kiddie movie, but "Antz" had actual depth and social commentary (which, of course, is why "A Bug's Life" was more popular among the idiot masses).
  • by cowscows (103644) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @09:16AM (#14532146) Journal
    I don't doubt that Disney had some brilliant creative minds working for them. Sadly, it's quite easy for a management system to pretty much crush and creative productivity, simply because management tends to control the cash flow. Do a little googling, it's not hard to find first hand accounts of artists explaining how miserable Disney made it to work for them.

    There are plenty of good ideas out there for movies. There are tons of good stories waiting to be told. There are plenty of people who would love to tell those stories. There aren't many companies out there willing to give those people free reign and fund them.

    Lasseter has done some amazing work, for sure, but I'll bet he'll give Steve Jobs plenty of credit, and not because he's worried about keeping his job.
  • by patiwat (126496) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @09:20AM (#14532156)
    I personally feel that most of Disney's original animation over the past decade has been mediocre at best, and therefore don't really care about what the Disney/Pixar reverse acquisition will mean for animation quality.


    What I am concerned about is how the deal will affect the Studio Ghibli/Disney distribution deal. For many years, Disney has had wide distribution rights over Ghibli works. Sometimes this has worked out for the better (the heavily promoted Spirited Away), and sometimes not so well (Miramax requested, but was denied, many edits in Princess Mononoke).


    A closer connection between Pixar and Disney will probably not harm Ghibli. It was noted [nausicaa.net] that John Lasseter (founder of Pixar) had given very strong support to Spirited Away, and was a key driver of what success that movie had in North America. A closer connection between Pixar and Ghibli will probably result in an even stronger benefit.


    Now, on notes of pure speculation, how might the Pixar/Disney merger benefit Ghibli going forward? Could we expect Miyazaki-animated short films (currently limited in distribution to the Ghibli Museum in Mitaka City, Tokyo) put on sale on the iTunes Video Store? Or maybe distribution of older classic Ghibli films? Imaging having a copy of Gauche the Cellist [nausicaa.net] on your iPod to perk you up on those cloudy days of life. Or how about strong promotion and wide distribution of the forthcoming Tales from Earthsea [nausicaa.net]? With the combination of a a imaginative and sensitive director like Goro Miyazaki [nausicaa.net] and effective marketing, I can't imagine how Earthsea wouldn't become a major blockbluster.


    What else would you like to see come out of the Studio Ghibli/Disney/Pixar deal?

    ---
    patiwat

  • Re:this sucks (Score:5, Interesting)

    by grahamlee (522375) <iamleeg.gmail@com> on Sunday January 22, 2006 @09:40AM (#14532205) Homepage Journal
    What this *does* mean is that Pixar will make any sequels to Toy Story et al, rather than Disney trying to do it with some crappy in-house team. The terms of the contract for Pixar's first five movies was that Disney had the rights to the characters and any spinoffs, exclusively. That's still true, but now they can guarantee on Pixar being on board to make said spinoffs. Oh, and Cars might finally get released ;-)
    In other thoughts; does this sound like something we've seen before? Small Steve-owned company gets bought for vastly more than its market value by big failing company, Steve gets put in charge of big failing company, big failing company becomes big meteoric success company? Does the word NeXT spring to mind for anyone else?
  • by MindPrison (864299) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @10:00AM (#14532260) Journal
    My gripe with the Disney company is that the current management promised that they would invest more in motion pictures than animation.

    Roy Disney where one of the last in the Disney family that was still in the studio and he wanted to push animation forward. He was also the first one to oppose the management suggestions to drop Pixar and let them "off" to sail their own sea. Big mistake, Roy knew it - and due to the management maximum age policy got laid off. Another big mistake.

    Not more than a year later - the Disney 2D department where subject to severe reduction and closedowns, 80 percent of the animation staff where dismissed due to the decline in success for 2D-animated feature films, strange - when you think of that they just dismissed Pixar back then.

    Now the management realize they have made a BIG boo-boo and desperately hook into Pixar again.

    See why I worry? With management like that - and as an Animator myself - I do worry!
  • by tverbeek (457094) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @10:03AM (#14532273) Homepage
    He's also going from being a 50% owner of a $7bn company to a 14% owner of a $50bn company.

    If Jobs went from owning $3.5billion worth of Pixar to owning 14% of Disney, that would mean he just made $3.5billion, because 14% of a ~$50billion company is about $7billion. I'm no accountant, so someone correct me if I'm figuring this the wrong way (does the market cap of Pixar get added to Disney's?), but I think his share of Disney is actually only 7%.

  • by mrchaotica (681592) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @11:48AM (#14532711)
    "Corporate citizens?" "Corporate CITIZENS?!?!" What. The. FUCK, man!

    The day corporations become citizens is the day I start rooting for the terrorists!!
  • by daviddennis (10926) <david@amazing.com> on Sunday January 22, 2006 @11:55AM (#14532763) Homepage
    They don't want him to leave.

    I'd be surprised if there is significant change at Pixar.

    If there is, you can count in seconds how long it would take for someone to offer John Lassater an animation studio of his own. Heck, with the profits from this, Lassater can probably finance his own movie if he really wants, and he'd drag half Pixar's crew along with him.

    That's why things won't change. Well, maybe they will. I'm betting everyone gets raises.

    Steve Jobs is a great man, but in Pixar his primary responsibilty was negotiating great contracts. Let's hope this is another one of them.

    As for Steve taking over Disney, I don't think it's impossible, but I'm hoping he keeps focus on Apple, where - as we all know - he's been doing great.

    I do think Steve's likely to become an influential advisor and board member, but probably not CEO. Remember, John Lassater and friends basically ran Pixar, which is why Jobs could be CEO of two companies and preserve excellence. I don't think he could do that with Disney.

    D

  • Now remember kids, corporations are artists too. As long as a corporation is legally treated as a human being and considered able to create 'art', its copyrights will be as eternal as its own legalese life. How can your copyrights expire if you can never die?

    Just mentioning the obvious - with the right argument, anything that has copyrights or trademarks with a corporate name on them will be safe for the rest of eternity.
  • Re:Considering (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NormalVisual (565491) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @12:23PM (#14532918)
    If we do get an ocasional very good blockbuster like the lord of the rings or the spiderman series and other is only because there are very good directors, screen players and other people that are very briliant and are willing to figth those guys.

    And let's not forget that Disney had the opportunity to do LOTR, but passed on it...
  • Re:this sucks (Score:4, Interesting)

    by timeOday (582209) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @01:03PM (#14533118)
    What this *does* mean is that Pixar will make any sequels to Toy Story et al, rather than Disney trying to do it with some crappy in-house team.
    Who cares? Look at Pixar's track record: Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Cars. The only sequel is Toy Story 2.

    Recycled "franchieses" aren't nearly so important to a company with some actual creativity. I'd much rather see Pixar given a free hand than chained to some sequel assembly line because somebody thinks it's 'safer.'

  • by MtViewGuy (197597) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @01:04PM (#14533125)
    I think what will happen is that we will see John Lasseter take overall control of all Disney animation divisions.

    This is actually a GREAT idea, because the hallmark of Pixar is the great storytelling of their movies. Lasseter could even help Disney revive traditional animation at Disney, too.

    I think people forget that unlike Michael Eisner, Robert Iger tries to be as much hands off as possible, letting each Disney division run by their own managers. This means Mr. Lasseter will have free reign to rebuild Disney's animation tradition. (big thumbs up)
  • by MtViewGuy (197597) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @01:10PM (#14533163)
    However, this merger sounds like that Roy Disney is backing Steve Jobs to get it done.

    Unlike Michael Eisner (who seemed to have alienated most everybody at Disney), Robert Iger--who has far better relations with Roy Disney--wants to mend fences to save the company, and if that includes a merger with Pixar, so be it.

    This merger could put John Lasseter in overall charge of all Disney animation divisions, and that could set the stage for a major revival of Disney animated features and TV shows.
  • Re:Really? How so? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DeepHurtn! (773713) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @01:57PM (#14533428)
    Walt's anti-union activities in the 30s is the stuff of evil, IMHO. His collaboration with the House Un-American Activities Committee was pretty despicable too.
  • Re:this sucks (Score:2, Interesting)

    by el cisne (135112) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @02:01PM (#14533447) Journal
    "I"m pretty sure there are quite a few laws against him holding the CEO position at both companies."

    You do know that Jobs has been CEO of both Pixar and Apple since 1998 or something when he officially took the CEO job at Apple, right? It might be more of a matter to the boards and shareholders voting whether it is "allowed", and maybe there is some legal thing to get around, I don't know, but apparently it is not the case that are not a lot of laws against someone being CEO of two separate companies.
  • by Overly Critical Guy (663429) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @02:18PM (#14533551)
    One thing I'm not seeing being discussed in the press is the fact that Bill Gates and Ballmer over at Microsoft must be pissed over this. They want to take over the living room, but now Jobs is part of Disney, who owns ABC, ESPN, Miramax, etc--he IS the living room. So he's got the content, and Apple will provide the means. Microsoft's road to the living room just got even tougher.

    I wonder if Ballmer will Fucking Kill (tm) Disney over this.
  • Steve's Master Plan (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Atomic Frog (28268) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @04:03PM (#14534043)
    Oh, I'm sure Steve has thought about the deal very, very carefully. The one reason why Pixar makes such great films is STORY, and Jobs knows it. (Compared to that other studio, SKG which churns out volume in the hopes of having a hit. No, really, Mr. K. said just that in an interview).

    I'm sure he makes sure he still has control over at least the Pixar unit. Pixar will be the only profitable unit and he knows it. What this does give him is control over Disney's vast media library.

    iTunes + Disney (guess which TV station Disney owns + many films which are not directly under the Disney name) content.

    Is it Disney buying out Pixar? Or Steve Jobs taking over Disney?
    Hahaha! World Domination!
  • by Fantastic Lad (198284) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @05:41PM (#14534536)
    The Next Big Thing, as suggested by the bold new marketing frenzy which the media and advertising gurus and venture-capitalists poised on the periphery are salivating over can be summed up by the following quote recently overheard at the watering hole at your local Ad firm. . .

    "For the entire month of December 2005, there was a new iPod being sold every 2 seconds!!"

    --The idea, of course, being that iPods are suddenly this brand-new giant ten million user-huge market which Apple has unique content-control over, which in turn, it is supposed by the media gods, means that ten million people are just begging to be advertised at. Sadly, the logic is pretty solid. Ad driven content is on the way. (In economic bubble-form of course, which naturally will burst in a big messy splotch, but not before Apple has ballooned into something larger and even stranger than it already is. . .).

    So Jobs now has a controlling hand over at Disney? When the heck did Apple become a world-shaping media-production company? Why wasn't I paying attention. Pixar kind of just crept up all quiet-like. When a big media company starts making good movies, it pays to watch out, because there's some big sneeze coming along a few years down the road!

    And what a world it will be! Media and Advertising already smack of the same dumbed-down, candy-coated, lowest-common-denominator brain-goo which Apple has been peddling since the first Mac graced the scene. --That is, to people who like big glossy companies to do their thinking for them. (Ooooh, it's so hard to plug an inexpensive hard drive into an IDE port. Bite me.)

    --And while we're at it, gag me with an iPod. What's next? Nuclear Devastation of a large American city at the hands of some Pentagon-funded fake-Islamic covert group? Well, yeah, but. . .

    So unless it runs Linux in some flavor, Apple can go blow. I can't stand the idea of Apple having a direct line into the public subconscious. Ugh.

    Think:

    If you own and love your iPod, does that make you a, "Pod Person"? Well, duh. Of course it does. If the term 'Pod' doesn't twang the creepy-chord deep in your belly, then you're simply not paying attention, or you are and you've chosen to ignore the queezy body-snatchers vibe and opt into Stepford-ville with your eyes open. Congrats! --Anybody who doesn't respect metaphysical etymology is missing a whole mess of clues. . . iPod = "The Aliens have gained control of my brain by implanting a small device on my head. I am now very submissive. Allow me mod points, beloved overlord, in service of the empire. Fantastic Lad irritates us."


    -FL

    (Sorry. I've been frustrated lately by the shape of the world, and my posts have reflected this through a higher toxicity content. My apologies. I really do love you all. Well, most of you, anyway.)

  • by rossifer (581396) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @09:59PM (#14535677) Journal
    No. It was like Nemo and Sharks Tale. Dreamworks decides to do a movie in the same theme as a contemporary Disney movie, but does so much much better but aimed at an older audience.

    I've seen both "Finding Nemo" and "Shark Tale", and I deeply and truly wish I hadn't spent the time seeing "Shark Tale". I understand that there's room in the world for all sorts of tastes, but I honestly don't see how anyone enjoyed "Shark Tale" more than "Finding Nemo".

    Antz was one of the first big non-Disney cartoons, and as such didn't do very well.

    Antz earned $75 million in domestic release, even more from DVD. It's done much better than it deserves (I don't care for late Woody Allen, nor did I think much of Antz).

    As an aside: until now, Pixar films have not been Disney films. Just like Miyazaki films are not Disney films. For Pixar films, Disney has been in charge of distribution (theaters and DVD's) and selling plush dolls, themed pajamas, and action figures. They haven't had a say in the movies, and that's probabaly been for the best.

    The last really good Disney animated film was "Lilo and Stitch" (4/5 Disney 2002).
    The rest has been dreck (and I include the very successful recent "Chicken Little" in that assessment).

    Here are my personal opinions on the movies of Pixar and Dreamworks Animation:

    Pixar:

    "Toy Story" just incredible and still fun to watch (5/5 Pixar 1995).
    "A Bug's Life" story, characters, great humor (young and old) (5/5 Pixar 1998).
    "Toy Story 2" a sequel better than the original (5/5 Pixar 1999).
    "Monster's Inc." more for kids than adults, still smart (4/5 Pixar 2001).
    "Finding Nemo" absolutely amazing (5/5 Pixar 2003).
    "The Incredibles" freaking awesome (5/5 Pixar 2004).

    Dreamworks Animation:

    "Prince of Egypt" good if you're into religious apologism... (1/5 Dreamworks 1998).
    "Antz" uh... well... I got nothing here. (1/5 Dreamworks 1998).
    "Chicken Run" off the charts hysterical (5/5 Dreamworks 2000).
    "The Road to El Dorado" still searching for characters, plot, etc. (1/5 Dreamworks 2000).
    "Shrek" damned funny, simple but solid story (4/5 Dreamworks 2001).
    "Spirit..." not much for adults here (2/5 Dreamworks 2002).
    "Shrek 2" to be gentle, abysmal (1/5 Dreamworks 2004).
    "Shark Tale" unfunny lowbrow humor (2/5 Dreamworks 2004).
    "Madagascar" had lots of laughs but the core story was weak (3/5 Dreamworks 2005).
    "W&G Curse of the Were-Rabbit" smart and funny (5/5 Dreamworks 2005).

    I think it's interesting to note the two best animated films that Dreamworks has made (IMNSHO) were both Aardvark productions, though the relationship between the two companies was different from "Chicken Run" to "...Were-Rabbit".

    Not until lately have people realised that Disney now suck and Dreamworks rocks. I call it post-Shrek :)

    Have to admit, I don't see it. Well, I understand that Disney Animation hasn't done anything decent in some time, but to say that Dreamworks has put up anything truly notable is a stretch. And Pixar has made substantially better films than either of them.

    Regards,
    Ross
  • Muffins!!! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by JackAxe (689361) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @11:27PM (#14536040)
    Ye have a funny perspective on things... :)

    Have you been sleeping for twenty years? :) Apple is one of the most recognizable brands on the planet. They've always had a major role in media production and once again are dominating many production areas, besides 3D. Suddenly happened with the iMac back in 98.. Now I'm just going to ramble.

    I for one love my iPod. It does exactly what I want it to do, without the BS like the horrid Sony device I own along with others that were utter garbage all around. So if owning a device that works absolutely great and makes it extremely easy to get my CDs onto it in a format I like, even the CD's own format, then I'm a Pod Person. :p It has been a huge sucess for Apple, for more than 4 years now and has by far outsold even Sony's Walkman.

    And if you were refering to running Linux on an iPod? It has been done and available for some time now; http://sourceforge.net/projects/ipodlinux/ [sourceforge.net]

    Pixar has been around for 2 decades now and pioneered many of the 3D techs that are used in various software packages and video cards. Toy Story is considered a classic. Their story telling and quality of production is second to none and they've managed to produced some of the best movies over the past decade. So I hope that this merger means that Disney will regain some of the magic it lost well over a decade ago.

    I for one would rather see Apple out front over most other companies. They do have their evil side, but they're not nearly as bad as others and have only made my life easier and more productive with their products. Consider the alterantive; Another company which has billions just to blow Balmer's nose has done very little to make our lives better and would eventually ilke to reach a point where we're all paying them a monthly fee and they're no longer innovating.

    Blah, I'm done rambling.

    <]=)

    -Make the internet a cleaner place, stop browsing with Internet Explorer.

To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so.

Working...