3 ms·
Because, in the 1990s, Pixar's IP was more popular than Disney's. The story (as I remember it from a Jobs biography) was that, in the Disney parks, there were l
by gwbas1c 1y ago
Because, in the 1990s, Pixar's IP was more popular than Disney's. The story (as I remember it from a Jobs biography) was that, in the Disney parks, there were longer lines for Pixar characters than Disney characters.
Someone in leadership (don't remember the name) basically swallowed pride and bought Pixar from Jobs. It was considered a "reverse acquisition" because Jobs had so much stock he technically controlled Disney afterwards.
- n2d4 1y agoThis was certainly true for animated movies in the 2000s (where Pixar clearly dominated), although not the companies as a whole. Pixar shareholders (including Jobs) owned about 15% after the deal. This isn't a reverse acquisition, it's just a normal acquisition. Company A (Disney) has many things but is missing one thing (an animation team that doesn't suck), so they buy a company that does have that thing.
- pests 1y agoBut what if company B ends up with majority ownership in company A in the end.
- e3bc54b2 1y agoIIRC Jobs was the single largest shareholder of Disney after acquisition, so that checks out. Found the source: https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2006/01/6038-2/ https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2006/01/6038-2/