8 ms·

This means that Disney now controls Marvel, Pixar, LucasArts, ABC, ESPN, A+E, Disney Channel plus all their own original content and of course the parks and mer

This means that Disney now controls Marvel, Pixar, LucasArts, ABC, ESPN, A+E, Disney Channel plus all their own original content and of course the parks and merchandising rights for everything stated above. Those businesses most likely control the top 10 film franchises of the last few years. This is a pretty insane acquisition.

001sky 14y ago
Keeps Apple out, too.
- kemiller 14y ago
  How does it do that? Disney has had a reasonably friendly relationship with Apple due to Steve's presence on both boards. Now that he's gone that might weaken, but he had a long time to win hearts and minds over there.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    Simple: Because the strategy is to keep Apple out of the content biz, as owners. It keeps Apple as a customer, while the TV/Cable's themselves vertically integrate. This sets up the Tv/Cable-co's to to extract rents. Now Disney <controls> a Pixar, Lucas ESPN, et al; Comcast <controls> Universal & NBC. This Apple TV?...etc.
    - Steko 14y ago
      I seriously doubt that Apple wants to be in the content biz any more than they already are with their first party apps. I'd guess Steve was fairly cognizant of the fact that the decline of Sony was directly related to their media acquisitions in the late 80's. When the media people get seats at the big table you develop an institutional hostility to the sorts of disruptive devices that Apple wants to build and Sony used to. Instead you get things like Ultraviolet, rootkits and the George Hotz fiasco.
      - 001sky 14y ago
        The relevant point is that Sony was not a distribution platform/network, and Apple is. And ESPN is mission critical for all cable platforms, so Dis ~by proxy, if not outright.
        Steko 14y ago
        I don't follow. Sony is not a distribution platform, ok. Apple is, ok. ESPN is mission critical for all cable platforms, ok. Dis by proxy, ok. None of these statements are false but none of them lead me to think Apple wants to own any of these content businesses. If Apple was going to buy any content company it's pretty obvious that they would have bought Pixar. Instead Steve sold Pixar to Disney. Now you're telling us that Disney's owning of these properties like Pixar is terrible for Apple but it doesn't fit the observed data.
        001sky 14y ago
        I don't follow You're too focused on Apple, and not focused on the companies defending their positions against Apple. The big threats to Hollywood are: (1) Hulu; (2) Netflix; (3) Apple. Valuation: (1) $1-2B (2) $10B (3) $6-700B > Notice the orders of magnitude. Strategy: (1) Hulu - kill by benign neglect (this is done) (2) Netflix - starve of tier 1 content (this is done) (3) Apple - keep them out of the game (this is in process) Right now, Apple themselves are more focused on SV (google, fb). But Apple has the ability to do things (1) and (2) cannot do, <should they want to> due to size ($100B cash?). Thus, strategies to kill (1) and (2) don't work (against apple). The best way to 'win' is to never let them into the game. Hollywood/RIAA will use a combination of vertical-integration, regional oligopoly, and legislation to protect their cash-cow businesses, just common sense.
        Steko 14y ago
        "strategies to kill (1) and (2) ..." Hollywood doesn't want to kill Hulu (which it owns) or Netflix any more than it wants to kill Wal-Mart or theater chains. The current threats to Hollywood profits are The Pirate Bay and YouTube and to a lesser extent RedBox. Netflix was briefly in a very favorable contract regime but that didn't last very long at all. "The best way to 'win' is to never let them into the game." This entire argument rests on the idea that Apple wants to "be in the game" -- i.e. become a big content company -- but that's what I'm contesting. And the whole thing falls apart because if it's bad for Apple that Disney acquires more content then why did Jobs sell Pixar to Disney?
  - d503 14y ago
    Bob Iger (CEO of Disney) also joined Apple's board shortly after Steve's passing.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
tectonic 14y ago
Therefore, it should be noted that they directly, or via tacit gatekeeping, have a huge amount of influence on our public dialog and cultural messaging.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Marvel, Pixar, LucasArts, ABC, ESPN, A+E, Disney Channel, and associated merchandising. I'm not sure how much "control" over our "public dialog" this really implies. I'm the parent of two very normal middle aged children and, while they're certainly exposed to some of this IP, I'd contest that it has much "influence" over them. Google has much more control over our public dialog than Disney does.
  - Firehed 14y ago
    Yet it would seem that Disney has a lot more to lose if IP laws are not kept in their favor, as evidenced by the Life+70 copyright extension they were able to successfully lobby into existence. Google and Disney clearly have two very different set of influences, but to imply that Disney has little control is simply wrong. Ultimately the buck stops with our various representatives, but Disney has some serious skin in the game of keeping the status quo intact. Suffice to say, their "Disney Vault" promotional tactic couldn't exist in a world where (what most people consider) sane copyright laws existed, and I've yet to see an argument that reasonably suggests that kind of behavior is good for our culture.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      I think this is orthogonal to the argument that I responded to upthread. The idea I responded to is that by rolling up so much of our popular culture, Disney has reached a point where it bears some kind of responsibility for vouchsafing our culture. Strong disagree: just like buying OMGPOP didn't reward Zynga with a mortal lock on the market for iPhone games, buying up the most popular media properties won't reward Disney with control of our culture. Disney in reality has much less control over our culture than many other companies, including many other media companies. The fact of their purchasing Lucasfilm doesn't change that. It's alarmist to suggest that owning Star Wars is going to give Disney some kind of undue influence. If anything, it's likely to improve that terribly corrupted and besmirched franchise.
bduerst 14y ago
Most of these companies are a conglomerate of entertainment subsidiaries - i.e. Viacom (Paramount, MTV, Nickelodeon), Time Warner, NBC Universal / Comcast. That said, Disney has seen a pretty steady increase in revenue (~5-6%) over the past few years.
hristov 14y ago
Fine with me. I am generally sick of franchises anyways. It is about time we started making new franchises.
brc 14y ago
I recently visited the Disney Hollywood Studios in Florida. There they have a Indiana Jones live action show as well as a Star Wars exhibit of some kind, I saw little kids dressed in Padawan outfits and getting to fight Darth Vader with a lightsaber (yes, looked pretty cool). I was surprised at seeing Lucasfilm licensing these valuable properties to Disney for use in a theme park. I guess the two companies have been working together for years.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  They also do the Jedi Training Academy show at Disneyland in California. It's a great production and just fits perfectly with the rest of the feel of Disneyland.
  - brfox 14y ago
    I agree. After we visited Disneyland this year with my kids, I looked up the profit to Disney from movies vs theme parks, and they make a lot more profit on theme parks than movies. So, you could consider that the media arm is just an advertisement to get people to visit Disneyland/World parks.
    - brc 14y ago
      You got that right. I think that this deal, like the Pixar one, brings in something that Disney hasn't been able to create on it's own for a long time - enduring and loved characters. It's all very well trying to get a 5 year old to be 'into' Mickey Mouse, but they are far more interested in Buzz Lightyear or Nemo or Lightning McQueen. Disney itself hasn't been very good at 'coining' characters for a while, and there is no doubt the real cream is in the merchandising. A successful movie, therefore, is not just about getting box office, but also in spawning characters that can become cashcows.
- bconway 14y ago
  The "Star Tours" ride has existed since the late 80s when the section of the Florida park was called MGM Studios (and also existed at Disneyland). Interesting history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Tours http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Tours
jonnathanson 14y ago
Disney has always been a merchandizing company at heart. It understood, and understands, the value of brands better than any other entertainment company on the planet. LucasFilm is the same way; George Lucas has always been a savvy merchandizer. This is not only a good portfolio acquisition for Disney, but also a good cultural match.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
rszrama 14y ago
Harry Potter? Twilight? Final Destination? (Oh, wait.)

001sky 14y ago

Keeps Apple out, too.

kemiller 14y ago
How does it do that? Disney has had a reasonably friendly relationship with Apple due to Steve's presence on both boards. Now that he's gone that might weaken, but he had a long time to win hearts and minds over there.
- 001sky 14y ago
  Simple: Because the strategy is to keep Apple out of the content biz, as owners. It keeps Apple as a customer, while the TV/Cable's themselves vertically integrate. This sets up the Tv/Cable-co's to to extract rents. Now Disney <controls> a Pixar, Lucas ESPN, et al; Comcast <controls> Universal & NBC. This Apple TV?...etc.
  - Steko 14y ago
    I seriously doubt that Apple wants to be in the content biz any more than they already are with their first party apps. I'd guess Steve was fairly cognizant of the fact that the decline of Sony was directly related to their media acquisitions in the late 80's. When the media people get seats at the big table you develop an institutional hostility to the sorts of disruptive devices that Apple wants to build and Sony used to. Instead you get things like Ultraviolet, rootkits and the George Hotz fiasco.
    - 001sky 14y ago
      The relevant point is that Sony was not a distribution platform/network, and Apple is. And ESPN is mission critical for all cable platforms, so Dis ~by proxy, if not outright.
      - Steko 14y ago
        I don't follow. Sony is not a distribution platform, ok. Apple is, ok. ESPN is mission critical for all cable platforms, ok. Dis by proxy, ok. None of these statements are false but none of them lead me to think Apple wants to own any of these content businesses. If Apple was going to buy any content company it's pretty obvious that they would have bought Pixar. Instead Steve sold Pixar to Disney. Now you're telling us that Disney's owning of these properties like Pixar is terrible for Apple but it doesn't fit the observed data.
        001sky 14y ago
        I don't follow You're too focused on Apple, and not focused on the companies defending their positions against Apple. The big threats to Hollywood are: (1) Hulu; (2) Netflix; (3) Apple. Valuation: (1) $1-2B (2) $10B (3) $6-700B > Notice the orders of magnitude. Strategy: (1) Hulu - kill by benign neglect (this is done) (2) Netflix - starve of tier 1 content (this is done) (3) Apple - keep them out of the game (this is in process) Right now, Apple themselves are more focused on SV (google, fb). But Apple has the ability to do things (1) and (2) cannot do, <should they want to> due to size ($100B cash?). Thus, strategies to kill (1) and (2) don't work (against apple). The best way to 'win' is to never let them into the game. Hollywood/RIAA will use a combination of vertical-integration, regional oligopoly, and legislation to protect their cash-cow businesses, just common sense.
        Steko 14y ago
        "strategies to kill (1) and (2) ..." Hollywood doesn't want to kill Hulu (which it owns) or Netflix any more than it wants to kill Wal-Mart or theater chains. The current threats to Hollywood profits are The Pirate Bay and YouTube and to a lesser extent RedBox. Netflix was briefly in a very favorable contract regime but that didn't last very long at all. "The best way to 'win' is to never let them into the game." This entire argument rests on the idea that Apple wants to "be in the game" -- i.e. become a big content company -- but that's what I'm contesting. And the whole thing falls apart because if it's bad for Apple that Disney acquires more content then why did Jobs sell Pixar to Disney?
- d503 14y ago
  Bob Iger (CEO of Disney) also joined Apple's board shortly after Steve's passing.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]

tectonic 14y ago

Therefore, it should be noted that they directly, or via tacit gatekeeping, have a huge amount of influence on our public dialog and cultural messaging.

tptacek 14y ago
Marvel, Pixar, LucasArts, ABC, ESPN, A+E, Disney Channel, and associated merchandising. I'm not sure how much "control" over our "public dialog" this really implies. I'm the parent of two very normal middle aged children and, while they're certainly exposed to some of this IP, I'd contest that it has much "influence" over them. Google has much more control over our public dialog than Disney does.
- Firehed 14y ago
  Yet it would seem that Disney has a lot more to lose if IP laws are not kept in their favor, as evidenced by the Life+70 copyright extension they were able to successfully lobby into existence. Google and Disney clearly have two very different set of influences, but to imply that Disney has little control is simply wrong. Ultimately the buck stops with our various representatives, but Disney has some serious skin in the game of keeping the status quo intact. Suffice to say, their "Disney Vault" promotional tactic couldn't exist in a world where (what most people consider) sane copyright laws existed, and I've yet to see an argument that reasonably suggests that kind of behavior is good for our culture.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    I think this is orthogonal to the argument that I responded to upthread. The idea I responded to is that by rolling up so much of our popular culture, Disney has reached a point where it bears some kind of responsibility for vouchsafing our culture. Strong disagree: just like buying OMGPOP didn't reward Zynga with a mortal lock on the market for iPhone games, buying up the most popular media properties won't reward Disney with control of our culture. Disney in reality has much less control over our culture than many other companies, including many other media companies. The fact of their purchasing Lucasfilm doesn't change that. It's alarmist to suggest that owning Star Wars is going to give Disney some kind of undue influence. If anything, it's likely to improve that terribly corrupted and besmirched franchise.

bduerst 14y ago

Most of these companies are a conglomerate of entertainment subsidiaries - i.e. Viacom (Paramount, MTV, Nickelodeon), Time Warner, NBC Universal / Comcast. That said, Disney has seen a pretty steady increase in revenue (~5-6%) over the past few years.

hristov 14y ago

Fine with me. I am generally sick of franchises anyways. It is about time we started making new franchises.

brc 14y ago

I recently visited the Disney Hollywood Studios in Florida. There they have a Indiana Jones live action show as well as a Star Wars exhibit of some kind, I saw little kids dressed in Padawan outfits and getting to fight Darth Vader with a lightsaber (yes, looked pretty cool). I was surprised at seeing Lucasfilm licensing these valuable properties to Disney for use in a theme park. I guess the two companies have been working together for years.

MartinCron 14y ago
They also do the Jedi Training Academy show at Disneyland in California. It's a great production and just fits perfectly with the rest of the feel of Disneyland.
- brfox 14y ago
  I agree. After we visited Disneyland this year with my kids, I looked up the profit to Disney from movies vs theme parks, and they make a lot more profit on theme parks than movies. So, you could consider that the media arm is just an advertisement to get people to visit Disneyland/World parks.
  - brc 14y ago
    You got that right. I think that this deal, like the Pixar one, brings in something that Disney hasn't been able to create on it's own for a long time - enduring and loved characters. It's all very well trying to get a 5 year old to be 'into' Mickey Mouse, but they are far more interested in Buzz Lightyear or Nemo or Lightning McQueen. Disney itself hasn't been very good at 'coining' characters for a while, and there is no doubt the real cream is in the merchandising. A successful movie, therefore, is not just about getting box office, but also in spawning characters that can become cashcows.
bconway 14y ago
The "Star Tours" ride has existed since the late 80s when the section of the Florida park was called MGM Studios (and also existed at Disneyland). Interesting history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Tours http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Tours

jonnathanson 14y ago

Disney has always been a merchandizing company at heart. It understood, and understands, the value of brands better than any other entertainment company on the planet. LucasFilm is the same way; George Lucas has always been a savvy merchandizer. This is not only a good portfolio acquisition for Disney, but also a good cultural match.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

rszrama 14y ago

Harry Potter? Twilight? Final Destination? (Oh, wait.)