Version: 2008
  • On MovieTome: The next Marvel mutant movie?

Comments on: Jobs' new Disney role raises conflict concerns

Even with precautions, deals between studio and Apple could raise serious conflict-of-interest issues, experts say.

Add a Comment (Log in or register) (13 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
Think Again
by Cgorter January 25, 2006 1:36 PM PST
I don't think anyone has ever really thought about calling something a "Mickey Mouse" operation or product. The rodent made Walt and company millions, so I, for one, would be more than happy to be part of a Mickey Mouse operation.

I hope the Disney - Pixar merger brings more quality products to the public. Something really needed in todays entertainment world.
Reply to this comment
A bad article all around
by January 25, 2006 2:38 PM PST
This article was weak and biased. Bottom line, Steve Jobs started
a company that was better at doing Disney's job than Disney
itself. Pixar was not the only asset that Disney got, they got one
of the most successful corporate leaders in the world. He now
has the largest private stock portfolio of Disney. To be honest,
Pixar had to be bought out before they were competing with
Disney. Giving Steve Jobs a reason to care about Disney's
fortunes is part of the end goal. Apple Computer (Under Jobs)
has innovated the distribution system for video. How is an
Apple/Disney alliance a conflict of interest? It isn't. It is
something for other companies to wish for upon a falling star.
Reply to this comment
I Agree.
by open-mind January 25, 2006 3:37 PM PST
This seems to be the article's premise...

"Jobs has more influence than before, so you should all be wary of the evil/unfair things he might plan."

I think it's fine if Disney and Apple help each other, as long as they continue making good products.

On the other hand, if they squeeze out competition so they can stop innovating (ala MS I.E.), or squeeze out competition so they can price gouge (ala MS Office), then I will have a problem with their actions.
Jobs did not start Pixar,
by thomcarl January 25, 2006 6:40 PM PST
he bought it as an investment for $10 million. The company was in
in existence before Mr. Jobs bought it and if memory serves me
correctly was started by one George Lucas.
View reply
Apple/Disney Alliance
by ahickey January 25, 2006 11:57 PM PST
The point of the article is that there is no Apple/Disney Alliance. It is Disney and Pixar that have merged.

So the shareholders in Apple and Disney have two different agenda.

Disney will want to make the most profit from their content while Apple for their Video distribution will want to but the content for the best price possible. If Steve Jobs is on both sides of the table during the discussions who will win? Will there be a bias? Will Apple's profitability be affected in the interest of growng Disney or will Disney's profitability be affected?

The heart of the matter is relevant, but I agree that it is badly presented.
He owns shares of both companies...
by lucien64 January 25, 2006 3:31 PM PST
... as he owned shares of PIXAR and APPLE. JOB is probably doing what's best for him AND the companies. Apple and PIXAR are both his babies, he will try to do what is best for them. Disney buys PIXAR, so he should get some controll inside of DISNEY to keep his baby alive.
Reply to this comment
Or Apple/Disney lead the industry...
by cagerattler January 25, 2006 4:31 PM PST
Or maybe this is what's needed to get a 'traditional' industry off it's butt and moving in the right direction.

So what if the Apple/Disney relationship gets closer, everyone else seems to be sitting on their hands not really doing anything (just talking).

Perhaps they'll lead by example and we'll all be better off for it (including competing companies who will obviously waiting to follow any successful model Apple/Disney create because they can't come up with strategy on their own. And then they'll complain about conflict and fair terms for content and wah-wah-wahhhhh!!!!).
Reply to this comment
What about Sony?
by Thrudheim January 25, 2006 6:09 PM PST
Take it one step further. Sony bought up a movie studio and
brought BMG Music on board as well. Rather than a conflict of
interest, this was supposed to be a brilliant move. It hasn't
worked out that well, of course.

Nevertheless, Sony/BMG definitely has mixed incentives in
negotiating with Apple and other companies that operate music
download services and make mp3 players, since it competes in
the same markets. It is not surprising that Sony is/was the big
holdout in Australia and Japan for getting music to the iTunes
music store. Sony would surely prefer to be the dominant
player.

So, to me, if Jobs now sits on the Disney board, it is not such a
big deal. These sorts of alliances are not uncommon.
Reply to this comment
Re: Sony
by Peter Bonte January 26, 2006 12:39 AM PST
Agreed, the Sony electronics-music-film combination is far
more strangled together than the Apple-Disney situation.

Apple just won't get big discounts and such but if Disney treats
Apple equally fair with other tech company's then thats more
than enough. At least there won't be an exclusive contract with
MS over the content. :)
It started as the computer graphics division of Lucas Film...
by lucien64 January 26, 2006 1:47 AM PST
...and Jobs did a buyout for 10 MUSD. You can read the history of PIXAR at http://www.pixar.com.

Lucien.
Reply to this comment
by sara2535353 July 15, 2008 12:47 PM PDT
i dont think you should let miley do hannah montana its not fair for what she did i think you need to replace her with someone esle some one that looks like hannah not a silly girl in a wig thats so fake miley so fake she a look stealer anyway she stold hilary duff lizzy mcquire movie looks for mileys hannah montana that aint right thats why hilary duff changed her look for? all because of miley cyurs because miley dont like hilary duff at all shes jeouls of her big time? sence hannah montana show is no more hilary duff went back to her old look again im so glad there you go have hilary duff play the part of hannah montana shes real her look her hair its all real not a wig? hilary can sing dance act way better than mliey. miley blew it she dose not desreve to be hannah montana ever again and she lied to all the young girls who likes hannah miley told the girls hannah was a real girl and she aint its only miley in a wig those girls find out there going to be mad and not watch the show again and you lose some ratings big time and milery wounld lose some fans? like me? fair is fair mliey messed up thats the way it should be please replace her or take of the show because nobody wants to see a girl who kisses other girls or be naked on tv thats gross you know how bad she made diany channle look? bad?
all my friends siad if you bring her back they aint going to watch it because of what miley did gross?
Reply to this comment
(13 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

Latest tech news headlines

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.

More feeds available in our RSS feed index.

advertisement