5 ms·
It's an interesting story about their IPO. What I found interesting in the book "Creativity Inc" by their co-founder, Ed Catmull, was that Jobs effectively gav
by socalgal2 10mo ago
It's an interesting story about their IPO.
What I found interesting in the book "Creativity Inc" by their co-founder, Ed Catmull, was that Jobs effectively gave them 70 million and 3-4 years of them trying to make computers before they pivoted to animation. I'd love someone to give me 70 million :P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity,_Inc.
PS: I read the book when it came out. I don't have it around to check my memory is correct about 3-4 years and 70 million. What I remeber is they were a subdivision of ILM tasked with making computers. ILM tried to sell them to HP IIRC, who was not interested. Jobs bought them to make computers, not animation.
- JKCalhoun 10mo agoThe Pixar story is also a kind of an interesting angle on either Jobs blindness or brilliance—thinking that Pixar was a software company, thinking it was a hardware company, and only belatedly coming around to the idea that it was in fact a film studio…
- paulryanrogers 10mo agoRich guy gets lucky and is retconned as brilliant is a familiar trope
- Keyframe 10mo agoTurns out Pixar _was_ a software company which also did hardware when it was sold. There was another part of ILM that stayed with Lucas which was an VFX shop where most of creatives were. ILM also got rights to use (full source) PRMan/Renderman from it. With Pixar you also got a creative demo team with Lasseter which produced demo shorts that turned into a studio. Lasseter is mostly the story there, no matter the software Pixar did, imo.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- hypercube33 10mo agoI feel like pixar could easily have a crazy docudrama made about them that'd be better than blackberry
- deeth_starr_v 10mo agoI agree. If you haven’t yet, check out Halt and Catch Fire