5 ms·

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

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?
        001sky 14y ago
        Hulu is worth $1-2B, maybe. Its a sacrificial lamb. To each individual shareholder, its a fraction of this "value". But Hulu is near "value-less" without its rights deals (see: failed IPO). [1] As for the rest, I think you mis-understand the logic. The Hollywood's strategy doesn't hinge on Apple's beliefs. In the same way that the strategy in Chess of Black may be pursued absent White understanding it. The greatest battles won, are those never fought (to paraphrase Sun Tzu) It used to be said tha Steve Jobs knew what a consumer wanted before he ever imagined it. It did not matter to Jobs if the consumer was unawares of the virtues of his future products. He built them anyway. Similarly, when trying purchase financial assets, it is best to do your buying when the rest of the market does not understand your strategy. That keeps the price down, competition at bay, and the liquidity high. Common sense says: this why hedge funds are secretive. __________ [1] Don't think for a moment that this is not fully understood, by the owners.
  - bduerst 14y ago
    Agreed. For a company the size of Apple, to get into content production it would be less expensive and quicker for them to acquire than to build it in house. And for any good partnership, there needs to be a Win-win on both sides. If Apple were to sabotage it's content agnosticism, would probably hurt it's mobile market share.
    - 001sky 14y ago
      But consider the counter-example: Hulu's failed IPO. The idea that these assets are available for sale is an assumption, not a given. The uncertainty of this assumption killed any chance of a Hulu IPO. The TV/film assets are protected by <copyright as monopoly>; and if they can be monetized outside of apple, they will be. That is pretty much in line with the observable data to date.
d503 14y ago
Bob Iger (CEO of Disney) also joined Apple's board shortly after Steve's passing.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

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?
        001sky 14y ago
        Hulu is worth $1-2B, maybe. Its a sacrificial lamb. To each individual shareholder, its a fraction of this "value". But Hulu is near "value-less" without its rights deals (see: failed IPO). [1] As for the rest, I think you mis-understand the logic. The Hollywood's strategy doesn't hinge on Apple's beliefs. In the same way that the strategy in Chess of Black may be pursued absent White understanding it. The greatest battles won, are those never fought (to paraphrase Sun Tzu) It used to be said tha Steve Jobs knew what a consumer wanted before he ever imagined it. It did not matter to Jobs if the consumer was unawares of the virtues of his future products. He built them anyway. Similarly, when trying purchase financial assets, it is best to do your buying when the rest of the market does not understand your strategy. That keeps the price down, competition at bay, and the liquidity high. Common sense says: this why hedge funds are secretive. __________ [1] Don't think for a moment that this is not fully understood, by the owners.
- bduerst 14y ago
  Agreed. For a company the size of Apple, to get into content production it would be less expensive and quicker for them to acquire than to build it in house. And for any good partnership, there needs to be a Win-win on both sides. If Apple were to sabotage it's content agnosticism, would probably hurt it's mobile market share.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    But consider the counter-example: Hulu's failed IPO. The idea that these assets are available for sale is an assumption, not a given. The uncertainty of this assumption killed any chance of a Hulu IPO. The TV/film assets are protected by <copyright as monopoly>; and if they can be monetized outside of apple, they will be. That is pretty much in line with the observable data to date.

d503 14y ago

Bob Iger (CEO of Disney) also joined Apple's board shortly after Steve's passing.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]