Jobs Leveraging Pixar Deal to Get TV Content?

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
7,417
8,491


The Independent has an article about Steve Jobs with an interesting perspective.

Of note, however, is a tidbit about Apple's current deal with Disney to provide Television content for the iTunes Music Store. According to the Independent, Steve Jobs is leveraging Pixar-Disney negotiations in order to obtain the TV content for iTunes:

Disney gave in to Pixar, and is presently trying to woo it back to a new distribution deal - a deal that Jobs is making Disney give up all sorts of favours for, like providing content in the form of TV shows for his Apple iTunes store.
When Apple launched iTunes 6 with video content, only one Disney/ABC had licensed content to Apple. Apple claimed later that ABC was the only network that was initially offered the option.
 

rlwimi

macrumors newbie
Oct 29, 2005
7
0
Jobs really needs to be demoted to a VP of some sort of iPod/iTMS/Media division at Apple. It's clearly what he's good at. Apple is on their way to utterly dominating the digital media market. They are becoming so dominant that a record label president friend of mine thinks they are actually pacing themselves to avoid anti-trust problems.

Apple needs to find someone competent to try to salvage the desktop/server side of the company before it is too late. Job's mishandling and miscalculation of IBM has left Apple married to the ever increasing Intel processor train-wreck.

It isn't too late for someone competent to make amends with IBM.
 

FireArse

macrumors 6502a
Oct 29, 2004
891
101
rlwimi said:
It isn't too late for someone competent to make amends with IBM.
I could not agree more. I think that the uptake of Macs is improving - general people are talkling and thining about buying macs. Someone please give Apple and IBM a kick up the corporate @rse and make faster (and mobile friendly) PPC chips!!

F
 

longofest

Editor emeritus
Jul 10, 2003
2,790
1,301
Falls Church, VA
Macrumors said:


The Independent has an article about Steve Jobs with an interesting perspective.

Of note, however, is a tidbit about Apple's current deal with Disney to provide Television content for the iTunes Music Store. According to the Independent, Steve Jobs is leveraging Pixar-Disney negotiations in order to obtain the TV content for iTunes:



When Apple launched iTunes 6 with video content, only one Disney/ABC had licensed content to Apple. Apple claimed later that ABC was the only network that was initially offered the option.
That crazy Steve Jobs. What does he think he's doing? Negotiating??? :cool:
 

Epicurus

macrumors 6502
Apr 28, 2005
394
0
Minneapolis, MN
For me, getting Lost was a really nice step for Apple starting their video downloads. Whatever leverage Pixar might give Apple over Disney/ABC, I think that Disney is getting a fair deal here. Their content gets out there first, and first to market is important. I hope that this idea that Disney was pushed into the iTunes deal doesn't spread so far as to make the environment hostile towards Apple among the major Networks. The news that 1 million videos have been downloaded might help that cause.

Apple needs to get more content before Christmas and start selling iTunes Video gift cards (nothing significantly different than the current cards, but with more "video"-style marketing to pump up awareness). Has anyone seen a TV ad for the new iPod (similar to the new iPod nano ads)? I haven't.

Apple needs to get some more impressive download numbers under their belt and then go one on one with each of the networks (like they did with ABC) and get some token content. ABC only gave up a few of its shows, not its entire catalog. Maybe Apple can grab a few of the top shows from the big networks (like Family Guy and Arrested Development from Fox), let them reel in nice, big profits over the Christmas holiday, and then sit back down in January and get some more of their shows then. Take small steps, keep moving forward, and dealing with every network one at a time.:D
 

bigandy

macrumors G3
Apr 30, 2004
8,856
0
Murka
introduce the TV shows here, and maybe charge a similar price (grr) as the US store, and i might be tempted. £1.89 for a music video? you're kidding, right? that's US$3.35.
 

yorkslad

macrumors regular
Oct 31, 2005
107
0
bigandy said:
introduce the TV shows here, and maybe charge a similar price (grr) as the US store, and i might be tempted. £1.89 for a music video? you're kidding, right? that's US$3.35.
i agree, give us brits TV shows pleasssssse. I also agree with the £1.89 $3.35 thing too, alittle too pricey to tempt most I suspect!!
 

LimeiBook86

macrumors 604
May 4, 2002
7,982
4
Go Vegan
Remember when Jobs unvieled iTunes 6 and the video iPod? Remember when most of the audience booed at the Disney guy after he said something about Pixar? Priceless! :D ;) Maybe that's part of Disney's motivation to make up with Pixar again. Movies like Toy Story 3 won't be the same without Pixar. I think Disney is finally realizing what they have lost.
 

LimeiBook86

macrumors 604
May 4, 2002
7,982
4
Go Vegan
physics_gopher said:
Maybe Apple can grab a few of the top shows from the big networks (like Family Guy and Arrested Development from Fox), let them reel in nice, big profits over the Christmas holiday, and then sit back down in January and get some more of their shows then. Take small steps, keep moving forward, and dealing with every network one at a time.:D
My Mom recently went on a buisness trip to Austrilia (Big home of FOX broadcasting) and my Mom said there was something in the news about 'The Simpsons' being able to be downloading to your iPod soon, I suspect this would be a great addition to the iTunes store, cartoons look great on the iPod, nice and sharp :D More content = More customers :)
 

lmasanti

macrumors newbie
Aug 27, 2002
17
0
Buenos Aires, Argentina
I doubt it...

Jobs holds like 10% of Apple's stock (second main investor after a 15% fund) and 40-45% of Pixar (most important owner).

Of course he would use all his persuasion but Pixar made him billionaire and has more to loose if makes a bad arrangement with Disney.

And Xmas is an "iPod (video) selling season" not a TV shows selling season.
 

mac-er

macrumors 65816
Apr 9, 2003
1,455
0
Macrumors said:
[ Apple claimed later that ABC was the only network that was initially offered the option.
Don't believe that. Read an article that said CBS and NBC were offered it too, but they wanted to charge more than the $1.99 for their offerings.
 

ftaok

macrumors 603
Jan 23, 2002
6,134
1,160
East Coast
I've just read through the article and it doesn't seem too legit. It's basically all opinion. Now, the writer is certainly entitled to his opinion, but the part about Disney/Pixar isn't really the way it is.

Pixar's previous deal with Disney is not very favorable to Pixar. Disney reaps much of the profits from Pixar's films. Under this deal, Disney owns all rights to the titles, so any sequel to the existing Pixar films will be up to Disney to do, with or without Pixar. This is what Pixar and Jobs fear most. Imagine "The Incredibles 1.5", straight to DVD. Pixar is afraid that Disney will dilute the franchises that Pixar created and thus dilute the Pixar brand. Now, with Eisner out, Pixar is more at ease.

Anyways, if Jobs were to leverage Pixar's assets to garner a favorable deal for Apple, there would be hundreds of Pixar shareholders demanding an explanation. This is the area where Jobs needs to be careful. He has to maximize profits/benefits for both Pixar and Apple. He can't prop one company up at the expense of another. The SEC would be all over him.

In my opinion, the article is pure fluff.

ft
 

iris_failsafe

macrumors 6502
May 4, 2004
255
0
San Francisco, CA
I think now they can reach an agreement now that both have something that the other wants.

Before, Disney didn't have anythinng to offer to SJ.

BTW Since Pixar and Apple are 2 independent companies how can SJ negotiate with one to help the other?

Shouldn't he just merge the two and create a new company?
 

Maestro64

macrumors regular
Jan 5, 2005
208
0
Philadelphia
iris_failsafe said:
I think now they can reach an agreement now that both have something that the other wants.

Before, Disney didn't have anythinng to offer to SJ.

BTW Since Pixar and Apple are 2 independent companies how can SJ negotiate with one to help the other?

Shouldn't he just merge the two and create a new company?
Simple, Pixar has made billions for Disney and Jobs is half owner in Pixar and Disney needs Pixar for future billions. Now Apple needs Disney to for content to show the world that you can distribute online video and be successful and Jobs runs Apple. So use one to get what the other needs.
 

Super Dave

macrumors 6502
rlwimi said:
<snip>
It isn't too late for someone competent to make amends with IBM.
Ok, have I missed something? The PowerBook and PowerMacs just got an update. Aside from dual core PowerMacs the upgrades did not feature a single new processor technology. The PowerBooks didn't even get a speed bump.

I'm really not being facetious. I'm wondering if I missed some reason why Apple should stay with IBM?

David:cool:
 

Maestro64

macrumors regular
Jan 5, 2005
208
0
Philadelphia
ftaok said:
Pixar's previous deal with Disney is not very favorable to Pixar. Disney reaps much of the profits from Pixar's films. Under this deal, Disney owns all rights to the titles, so any sequel to the existing Pixar films will be up to Disney to do, with or without Pixar. This is what Pixar and Jobs fear most. Imagine "The Incredibles 1.5", straight to DVD. Pixar is afraid that Disney will dilute the franchises that Pixar created and thus dilute the Pixar brand. Now, with Eisner out, Pixar is more at ease.
This is only true for Toy Story 1, Jobs re-negotiated the deal after he took Pixar public right after Toy Story 1. The original deal was 3 moves over 7 yrs and Pixal paid most of the development cost and only share in 10% of the profits. The new deals was 5 movies over 10 yrs which ran out this year and Pixar and Disney split the production cost and Profits 50/50. Also, Pixar owns all creative rights to all charactors that Pixar produces except in the case of Toy Story 1 which Disney own all future sequels.
 

bankshot

macrumors 65816
Jan 23, 2003
1,259
73
Southern California
ftaok said:
Pixar's previous deal with Disney is not very favorable to Pixar. Disney reaps much of the profits from Pixar's films.
From what I remember reading, I believe the Pixar/Disney deal is actually unprecedented in how favorable it is for the production house (Pixar). Apparently these types of deals usually go about 90/10 in favor of the distributor, but even back when they were just starting, Steve Jobs was able to negotiate a 50/50 deal. Maybe that's just an urban legend, though. :rolleyes:

Of course, as you say, Disney still owns all the rights, which is a big deal even after the profits from the existing films are counted. Considering that, it's extremely favorable toward Disney, but again my impression is that this is "normal" for the industry. Kind of ridiculous, really. Hopefully Pixar can start setting new precedents where the content creators get most of the reward from their hard work. A distributor should be just that: a distributor, and nothing more.
 

ftaok

macrumors 603
Jan 23, 2002
6,134
1,160
East Coast
Maestro64 said:
This is only true for Toy Story 1, Jobs re-negotiated the deal after he took Pixar public right after Toy Story 1. The original deal was 3 moves over 7 yrs and Pixal paid most of the development cost and only share in 10% of the profits. The new deals was 5 movies over 10 yrs which ran out this year and Pixar and Disney split the production cost and Profits 50/50. Also, Pixar owns all creative rights to all charactors that Pixar produces except in the case of Toy Story 1 which Disney own all future sequels.
Maestro,

This is not what I've read in many publications. From what I've read (and maybe I'm mistaken here), Disney owns the rights to all movies produced under the negotiated deal with Pixar. This means all movies and future sequels for everything up to next year's "Cars".

I'll have to go back and take a look at Business Week (which is where I believe I read the stuff in the first place) to see if I'm right.

ft

EDIT - I just did a quick check on Wikipedia and it seems we both had a few details correct. The 1995 deal gave Disney 50% of the profits but they kept ownership to the films and all characters. I do remember Jobs saying that his biggest fear was Disney pumping out lousy, straight-to-DVD sequels of Pixars creations. So I guess we're both right.

As for the deal being great for Disney or great for Pixar, it seems as if most people feel that Pixar carved themselves a great deal back then. I was under the impression that it was a bad deal for Pixar mainly because I had heard it from Jobs perspective.
 

elmimmo

macrumors 6502
Apr 18, 2002
265
0
Spain
I would take the suggestion (because it is a suggestion, mind you) of Disney making favours to Jobs expecting a new deal with Pixar back with a grain of salt. Up until now Jobs has proved to be a very professional CEO in both companies by separating their business completely. While he might be somewhat free to take Pixar the road of his desires instead of those of his investors (him owning more than half of the company), he is just CEO of Apple. While it might seem that using a hypothetical Pixar-Disney deal as a tool to force Disney make favors to Apple might benefit Jobs, they are different companies with different investors. To sum up, Jobs will only make Apple deal with Disney if it is good for Apple, and will only make Pixar deal with Disney if it is good for Pixar. And anyone (including the journalist from The Independet) not getting this has not followed Jobs very closely.
 

fixyourthinking

macrumors 6502a
Oct 24, 2002
665
0
Greenville SC
This isn't an interesting perspective ...

MANY people assumed this is what was going on and what was (kind of) wink wink at the press event when Iger said ... "we've signed a new deal with Steve over this - but not with his other company ... maybe later" (or something like that.

This article was purely speculative and really just very easy to assume.