Talk of competition really means nothing to the big boys because they are all invested in each other’s company stock and sometimes co produce movies together. Non exclusive Disney will still be streaming and available for purchase on other services.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Disney CEO Bob Iger Staying on Apple's Board, Will 'Continue to Monitor' Situation
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
While I don’t think that anybody compares to Eric Schmidt, thinking that Disney’s Agenda was a fixed thing does not exactly fit their course over the years. They buy whatever they can get and Apple might need to do so, too.
I don’t know what the board would know
about Apple’s scouting and development activities, but sharing that info as a free gift to board members might not what you want to do. And it can only be a gift to those who might have a use for it. Which also would be the criteria for whether that person should stay on board or not.
It’s always about those small ideas that might get bigger than you expected and where you don’t want to limit or risk your first-to-market advantage with a potential competitor. Not via your own board at least.
Whether that’s the case with Iger or if it’s more of a chance for providing great content (and here’s the parallel to Google back then) has to be decided by Apple, of course. Too many factors that can’t be judged that well from outside.
It wasn’t just Schmidt sitting at Apple’s board, on the other side there was Levinson who had to give up his seat at Google’s only a few months after Schmidt had left Apple. Presumably because the FTC was looking into the ties between the two companies.
Today Levinson still serves Apple as chairman of the board but is also the CEO of a Google/Alphabet owned biotech company. Apple and Google still are closer than people think.
I thought Rogue One was the best Star Wars movie since the original trilogy. Of course that doesn’t excuse the garbage fire that is VII, VIII, and Solo.
Plus Iger is only at Disney because of Steve Jobs. Disney was getting it's ass kicked in the animation film business because of Pixar (Jobs again). There are numerous areas where Pixar helps Disney in that merged and only thing that Pixar fans got were ****** sequels (Disney's M.O.) to Pixar movies.
[doublepost=1555163601][/doublepost]
Solo is the type of content we will see on Disney+. I haven't been able to sit through that movie yet!
Disney keeps trying to remake the original Star Wars and Empire with new Skywalkers filling in for Luke/Leia/Han. Given how the series has gone since Return of the Jedi it would have been better if Lucas had ended the Skywalker portion of the story when he decided to restart the franchise in the late 1990's. Of course, no one knew that ahead of time. Disney also should have moved onto new plot lines and characters when they took over. If absolutely necessary show Luke/Leia/Han/C3PO/R2D2 as a minor plot line that is resolved within that movie on Disney's first Star Wars film.
Or just embraced the repetition and called the first movie a New New Hope.
Netflix was the only game in town for streaming. Now, we have competition from scary players like Disney.
Netflix needs way more original content to compete with Disney long term.
Netflix likely will have their multiple come down because their earnings don’t support the valuation, particularly with increased competition.
I’m not saying they are going out of business, but the game is changing now. Disney is not just another competitor.
[doublepost=1555166367][/doublepost]
Spoken like a fan. Go look how much money Disney made from each movie, untold cash from merchandise, and new lands in their parks that will attract guests. They have already paid for the acquisition and are just getting started.
Star Wars has been a massive success, objectively, for Disney.
[doublepost=1555166446][/doublepost]
Apple isn’t a media company...yet. For now, it’s hobby.
I hope Netflix and others aren't driven out of business and that they find ways to grow. I think they are in for a few rough years though.
[doublepost=1555166922][/doublepost]
As a matter of fact, yes, spoken like a fan. I don't care how much money Disney (or any other company including Apple) makes, I care if I like the product. I don't own specific stock, I own investment portfolios thru my 401K. What I want from a company is something I enjoy, or is useful, or simplifies a process I don't like doing. The only reason I care if a company makes money or not is because companies have a very short tolerance in supporting things that don't make them money, and if I like said service or product I want it to stick around.
People wanted a la carte and that is what we are getting. Hopefully, all the major companies get together eventually to create a bundle for those of us that still like them.
Your perspective is a bit skewed. Netflix is spending borrowed money and paying their loans with the remnants of their dwindling DVD rental business, and their subscriber base which has recently been missing their target growth projections. In order to forgo third party content, they have to have a library of equitable content to replace it, as they continue to churn out hit original content to sustain and grow their base. FRIENDS is a perfect example of how important Netflix views those third party shows to their subscriber base. The FRIENDS deal is far from the norm. Warner Bros. Gouged Netflix and they bought it because they are desperate for it. WB had nothing to lose as they know the value of the property and would have pulled it back and put it on their new streaming service. But if Netflix was dumb enough to spend $100 million for one year to keep it, well money is money to WB. They’ll just add it to ATTs new platform next year as they suck away a chunk of Netflix customers for whom that was a draw.
Meanwhile, many people I know are watching Netflix to catch up on Network TV shows they’ve missed, like the AMERICANS — they don’t even realize that they are original to Netflix. Many of those shows will be pulled to competing studio platforms, along with another chunk of subscribers. At some point, it will be solely about Netflix original offerings, and considering the borrowed billions Netflix has spent, and is committed to spend, each show will have to be a hit the size of FRIENDS to ensure sustained subscriber base to make enough profit to pay off that massive debt and make more shows. I would argue Netflix doesn’t have one show on the level of FRIENDS which is why they paid $100MM out of desperation to keep it for a mere additional year. And despite your assertion, the cost to produce an hour of quality TV has only gone up year after year. There is great value in licensed programs in added value for their subscribers, most of which programs are far less expensive than the friends deal. But you’re right, the license fees are going to go up for Netflix for the same reason — is it worth more to Netflix to retain subscribers, or to the original studio for their own competing streaming platform? And Netflix will likely overpay as they have for everything including studio executives they poached away from other studios, for 2-3x the salaries the industry otherwise pays.
And so it will go. Netflix has put itself in a box, and will soon find itself competing on its own merits with no other diversification to help sustain it. The day may even come where Netflix starts licensing its content to syndicated TV and opening a download store to reach more customers with its limited catalogue of hits. The math really doesn’t work out in Netflix’ favor once you look below the veneer of their operating model to date. And that makes them ripe for takeover once their subscriber rates fall enough that they begin to miss debt payments, and make quality compromises in their new programs, and lay off essential employees.
Not for long. Disney will be pulling their catalogue back from third parties, and the only place you’ll be able to get it is Disney. But the Netflix model only works if there’s enough content enough people want to see. You could say the same thing about HBO, and Apple. The only place you’ll be able to get their content will be from them. In the end, the key to success is whether enough people want to watch it. Netflix is so overextended they have no choice to but produce a hit with every show they produce, once they have nothing else to offer their subscribers, as Disney, ATT, Comcast, Amazon, CBS, and even Apple will be able to offer a much greater value proposition for subscribers, including many of the shows that People subscribe to Netflix to watch now. There are Netflix shows I love. But there aren’t really that many if I’m being honest with myself. So Netflix may experience subscribers dropping off, and signing on, only for those shows they must see. And that’s a nightmare for a company that intends to plan its fiscal budgets based on subscribers in order to produce new content and pay its massive loans, and operating overhead.
Apple may technically have the money to buy Disney, but I don't think there is any interest on Disneys part in selling. And a protracted hostile takeover wouldn't help either company no matter who wins, at least over the next 10 years.
Considering Apple's stated philosophy about the type of content they intend to permit in shows an Apple takeover would make sense, but only from Apples perspective. As far as streaming goes, Apple would need Disney a lot more than Disney needs Apple.
We won't really know about the quality or interest in any new content until there are actually shows available for both services, and that's not until late this year. Content available right now favors Disney by a massive margin. Apple could buy another content company but I don't know of one that doesn't have adult themes at the very least, and most have controversial subjects AND violence. Doesn't mean that there isn't a deal out there that Apple might be working on.
And? Still did $400M ($125M more than "breaking even") and made other merchandising revenue, expanded the library, etc. Solo did a little worse than they wanted, Rogue One, a lot better.
Just box office revenues.
Force Awakens: $2.05B
Rogue One: $1.05B
Last Jedi $1.33B
Solo: $400M
Force Awakens and Last Jedi both destroyed any original Star Wars, inflation adjusted. Disney is doing great with the franchise...don't be that guy.
A board member that contributes instead of recusing seems like a better choice.
Imagine getting the same indulgent treatment these guys get in your job: "Hey, boss. Don't expect that report. I'm recusing myself to a bar. Be sure my paycheck is ready when I get back."
[doublepost=1555171665][/doublepost]
Imagine getting the same indulgent treatment these guys get in your job: "Hey, boss. Don't expect that report. I'm recusing myself to a bar. Be sure my paycheck is ready when I get back."
[doublepost=1555171665][/doublepost]
It sounds goofy when you say it like that.
I am not an expert concerning business boards and what rules or regulations the people on them must or should follow, but if Apple didn't want him on the board couldn't they just remove him?
I don't see why you have to decide between the streaming services. None of them require long term contracts. Simply subscribe and unsubscribe to each after you have consumed the content that interests you. Game of Thrones out? I think I'll take HBO for a few months and also catch up on other shows that I missed. New Star Wars series out? Cancel HBO sign up for Disney. New season of Peeky Blinders? Time to cancel Disney and so on.
Because, despite one of my earlier posts, streaming content is a business. I don't care if they make money, but stockholders do. A company that doesn't make money and doesn't have a path towards profitability will get out of providing the service. Apple may have more money but that doesn't mean they want to keep pouring it down the drain if the service isn't successful.
From the available figures, Solo didn’t break even at the box office, but almost certainly has gone into profit since the home video release. Solo didn’t ‘make’ ~$400m for Disney at the box office, it grossed almost that much. The cinemas get a significant portion of that. So the gross, minus the cinema’s share, minus the promotional and production costs is what the studio ultimately “makes”.
I love all the Star Wars movies, Disney has done a great job with the recent ones.
More on topic, I don’t see any reason for Iger not to be on the Apple board yet.
Apple and Disney can take advantage of the unique position that they're in and actually have a fighting chance against Netflix by negotiating a bundled offer of Apple TV+, Disney+ and ESPN+.