Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

boundbylife t1_iy4sl85 wrote

This idea that they were going to merge with Apple was always complete nonsense. Disney has no need to merge; they aren't in serious financial trouble; they are THE name in theme parks; THE name in family entertainment; THE name in movie production; THE name in merchandising. They have major stakes in television, both broadcast and cable. Disney+ is somewhere between the 3rd and the 5th most popular streaming site (depending on how you count, and whether or not you include youtube). They are a well-diversified portfolio of companies, robust enough to weather anything but the most catastrophic market changes.

Literally the only real pressing problem for them these days is the potential dissolution of Reedy Creek (which I have very strong doubts will actually occur).

116

GarlVinland4Astrea t1_iy4u18t wrote

Ironically the theme parks are why I doubt Apple would want Disney. They probably don’t want in on that business and it’s so crucial to Disney revenue. I could see them trying to snag Disney Plus and merge it with Apple TV to get exclusive deals with them

40

boundbylife t1_iy4xck8 wrote

> Ironically the theme parks are why I doubt Apple would want Disney.

Actually I can see an argument for the parks being the exact reason Apple would want Disney.

The Parks are quickly becoming high-end, 'influencer-esque' experiences - my insta and TikTok are positively littered with people in the parks taking pictures, making blogs about the food etc.

Apple, I think for their part, would love nothing more than to soft-enforce an Apple Garden around that experience:

  • "Want to make your own magic shots, without having to pay memory maker? Only Apple Phones can provide this custom photo effect!"

  • "Use Apple Augmented Reality to see instantaneous wait times for your favorite rides"

  • "Only Apple watches are supported as third-party magic bands"

etc etc. Then you'd have all the influencers buying Apple because its 'the best experience', and they'd quasi-organically rep for Apple in every single post, blog, and video.

36

highdefrex t1_iy50ppb wrote

God, just reading that is nauseating, not because of you throwing all those hypotheticals out there, but because they're too plausible and gross, which is just... sad.

64

ekaceerf t1_iy5dslr wrote

But all of that can be done with a simple partnership. No need to spend 100+ billion dollars.

11

rickyhatespeas t1_iy6jc88 wrote

And it would alienate a huge market share domestically with no potential overseas. Apple would definitely be mostly interested in the content production and brand, they would almost be synonymous with the U.S.

5

kevin5lynn t1_iy686ps wrote

Your ideas could work, but they would never bring in the billions in revenue that Apple would need to even consider the viability.

9

rickyhatespeas t1_iy6k7k7 wrote

It could work on a technical level, like it's possible. But iPhone is only a little more than half of US phone users, if you dial into the demographics maybe 60-65% of Disney park guests have iphone. Overseas that drops to nothing. The amount of people buying a phone to go to Disney is probably 0 since hardcore fans/guests are likely on iphone already and adding another 2k to a ticket isn't feasible. It wouldn't cover R&D, let alone the Disney cost.

2

ChangeTomorrow t1_iy7ca2y wrote

Non of my social media feeds have any Disney related posts. It’s because you have personally curated for yourself do you see all the Disney posts.

4

Logan_No_Fingers t1_iy8ec66 wrote

Apple is a premium brand.

Its Apple - expensive v Android at free.

Disneyland parks core audience is middle & lower middle earners -

https://www.insider.com/middle-class-most-eager-to-visit-disney-parks-2021-6

IE very few of Apples core target market want to go to Disneyland

The parks are not "high end" influencer. They are garbage people 2000 follower, side line in onlyfans influencers. People earning $50-75k with 7 side hustles, a Robinhood & FTX account.

Apple is not chasing that market.

−1

Darkageoflaw t1_iy8pcie wrote

Almost everyone I know has an iphone lol. You make it sound like Apple only sells to Saudi Princes.

3

Logan_No_Fingers t1_iy8rm0h wrote

Well that's scientific. And a complete bullshittery of what I wrote

Here you go -

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3668913/you-are-the-product-but-with-an-apple-twist.html

"Apple’s customers tend to be more affluent than those on competing platforms. I’ve seen claims that the mean income of a US Android owner is $69,647, while iPhone user’s make $88,256.

In addition to that, 35% of Apple’s iOS owners have household incomes over $100,000 per year. An iPhone user is also three times more likely than an Android owner to have a total household income over $300,000/annum."

Average Disney park users have a $75k income.

https://www.insider.com/middle-class-most-eager-to-visit-disney-parks-2021-6

"People who earn less than $75,000 are most eager to visit Disney, according to an Insider poll.

Those with yearly incomes over $150,000 were the least interested in taking a Disney vacation."

0

Darkageoflaw t1_iy8ush9 wrote

More people in the US use iphones than android. It doesn't take a "scientist" to figure out it's a popular device that is owned by people in many economic classes in the US. Most people who have one are on a plan or have an older one. Also Disney World is pretty expensive for a theme park. If I was really cheap I'd go to six flags and have a cheap android (and I do).

3

Logan_No_Fingers t1_iy8ygvg wrote

> More people in the US use iphones than android. It doesn't take a "scientist" to figure out it's a popular device that is owned by people in many economic classes in the US.

Part of that was right, IOS has roughly 55% of the market.

Where you then veer off into made-up bullshit is when you decide that the economic spread is the same.

I mean GM has a 15% market share in the US, Audi a 7% market share. The average income of their owners are probably the same right?

0

Darkageoflaw t1_iy900l0 wrote

This is a bizarre argument. Your own article says "People who make under $75,000 per year are most eager to visit Disney, but it's almost unaffordable for them", the keyword is unaffordable. Disney and Apple are popular in general but they are expensive. People who want to go to Disney the most are people who can't afford it, like no shit if you can go anytime it's not special anymore. I bet you could find an article about poor people wanting an iphone more than people who already have one.

Do you really think 55% of Americans don't want to go to Disney world because they are too good for it? That's completely ridiculous lmao. Also Disney is more than just parks. Steve Jobs was one of the head guys at Pixar.

1

Logan_No_Fingers t1_iy92pdx wrote

> Also Disney is more than just parks.

Yes, it is, but this discussion was based around the idea a huge reason Apple would buy disney is to get parks.

Despite Apple having zero history in that area & zero over lap in target audiences

1

Darkageoflaw t1_iy94xdp wrote

>zero over lap in target audiences

Where are you getting this information? It's completely made up.

1

EvilioMTE t1_iy7tnjn wrote

>Ironically the theme parks are why I doubt Apple would want Disney

Theme parks have long been a place to test out and debut emerging technologies. A chain of theme parks would be the perfect thing for Apple to purchase.

I'm really intrigued, why do you believe that that would be something that would turn Apple away from a merger?

2

Logan_No_Fingers t1_iy8fq8y wrote

Zero overlap with apples actual target audience.

Park audience - lower & middle class. Apple target market - upper level earners with huge disposable income.

To monetise parks Apple would either need to convince those least likely to go to a park, to go, or convince those actually going to.. earn more & buy iPhones.

That makes zero sense. Apples target audience would be people who have a lot of cash & piss it away on stuff - like when they bought Beats, or Primephonic. Not mass market stuff targeted by the middle & lower earners.

Think of it like - would they buy Lululemon or Old Navy? Which has overlap?

3

EvilioMTE t1_iy8jru6 wrote

The parks would be used, as they have been before, for research and development. It has nothing to do with whether park audiences would actually buy the product. This has been going on for the entire history of Disney parks (and Universal).

1

Logan_No_Fingers t1_iy8of2d wrote

Exactly what R&D would apple need the parks for?

Again, given the average park user has almost no overlap with the average apple user - certainly not with top paying apple users

1

Obfusc8er t1_iy90s76 wrote

Lower and middle class? Have you seen the prices of a Disney World visit lately?

1

Logan_No_Fingers t1_iy93i42 wrote

Have you seen the people going to Disney world lately?

In addition, a massive part of Chapeck getting axed was he put the prices up in parks, alienating parks core audience.

IE the CEO literally just got fired to a very large degree, because he had made parks too expensive for the people who go to parks. And the first thing Iger singled coming in was he would halt that.

1

treerabbit23 t1_iy5gb2k wrote

Tell me you don't read 10Ks without telling me you don't read 10Ks.

−2

alexp8771 t1_iy4wa5p wrote

I mean they wouldn’t “merge” with Apple. Apple would just buy them. They are in different leagues market cap wise. But it makes zero sense for Apple to buy such a low margin business (by comparison) with huge overhead.

8

JC-Ice t1_iy50qtb wrote

Iger once said that he believed if Steve Jobs were still alive, Disney and Apple would have found a way to combine.

And Apple does have the money for it, along with a demonstrable interest in expanding into entertainment.

It may not happen, but the idea of it is far from nonsense.

7

iamse7en t1_iy6l06w wrote

Exactly. Mergers or Acquisitions aren’t for firms in financial trouble only. It works great for two massive, profitable companies where there are synergies, where both shareholders benefit (combined value is greater than value of both firms before a merger). There are some synergies here, but not a lot, which is why it's neither a slam dunk nor nonsense. Those synergies will increase with Apple's movement into entertainment and Reality experiences. There's a reason why there's chatter of it from both inside and outside the company. Far from nonsense.

3

kerkuffles t1_iy8hyx9 wrote

> This idea that they were going to merge with Apple was always complete nonsense. Disney has no need to merge; they aren't in serious financial trouble; they are THE name in theme parks; THE name in family entertainment; THE name in movie production; THE name in merchandising.

I see all this and raise you "stockholder".

3

boundbylife t1_iy8ke2l wrote

You're gonna have to be a little more specific than that.

Comparing Disney's stock performance to that of Apple, Amazon, and Google over the past 2 quarters, they're all in a 10% spread of each other. That would tend to indicate that any perceived drop in Disney's stock performance is due more to market trends than an institutional failing. I.E., if Disney is performing poorly its because people don't have money to give them, not because they have a substandard business model.

A sale to / merger with Apple would therefore probably not be well-perceived by shareholders. Indeed, if you suspect that Disney's performance will rise in the near future (be it because of the next wave of Marvel movies, the upcoming success of Avatar 2, or something else), you would effectively be selling to Apple at a loss (versus future gains).

2

kerkuffles t1_iy8ldgw wrote

A merger announcement would cause the stock for one or both companies to go through the roof.

2

JohnnyJayce t1_iy4ycyg wrote

Didn't even think that people would take that seriously. But if he comes out and says it, enough people believed it I guess.

2

boundbylife t1_iy51i2g wrote

When you see headlines about X company merging with Y company or similar, and they don't have any citeable sources, you should treat it like someone trying to manipulate the stock prices - because that's exactly what the effect is. Rumors of a merger would increase stock price of both companies, dispelling it would bring it back down. Iger going on record to say its not on the table is the responsible and ethical thing to do.

6

JohnnyJayce t1_iy51svh wrote

Not a stock guy, so haven't even thought about that. It seems reasonable, now I know. Thanks.

3

TraptNSuit t1_iy5b8in wrote

With all tech/media layoffs and all the recession gossip, keep this cynicism close by from here on out.

The free money is mostly gone now. Stockholders are getting greedy and desperate to try to shovel in as much as they can to make up for inflation and possible downturns in the market. It is going to be even more craven than normal.

3

HumanOrAlien OP t1_iy5411e wrote

The Verge and some other big publishers made it worse by writing an article about it.

2

KingMario05 t1_iy53e5i wrote

...why would Disney sell? Short of every MCU, Pixar, WDAS and 20th Century Avatar flick bombing for the next DECADE, they seem to have enough cash on hand to weather the current storm. Plus, they'd have to share their massive profits at best, and the only guy Disney would really want - Steve Jobs - has been dead for years. This isn't happening.

58

ENTP_datascienceguy t1_iy6kxlb wrote

Is he really dead though?

12

Orange-Turtle-Power t1_iy5mh5d wrote

I can’t wait for the 1 billion times this gets posted.

10

anodyne88 t1_iy6c7j1 wrote

Why is there a hiring freeze? Are the parks not doing well? Or do they just have enough minimum wage labor for now?

5

HumanOrAlien OP t1_iy6gvdn wrote

Bob Chapek announced the hiring freezing a couple of days before he was fired. He announced it a few days after bad quarterly financial report. Bob Iger is continuing the hiring freeze.

6

nayapapaya t1_iy7em5a wrote

They lost over a billion dollars in one quarter from Disney+ so that might have something to do with it.

2

anodyne88 t1_iy85ijp wrote

That seems strange to me. Did they make a bunch of shows and not get enough people to sign up? I thought they owned a lot of the content already.

2

nayapapaya t1_iy8p2yn wrote

Streaming is just not really a profitable game, especially not with the massive amounts of money that the studios are pumping into these shows. Hollywood just got swindled by the subscribe subscribe subscribe model that every single thing seems to be applying these days but they did so by undermining and cutting into their traditional revenue streams - theatrical, physical media and selling the rights to television. There just aren't as many ways to make money off of one piece of media as there used to be.

5

JustCallMeTsukasa-96 t1_iy7haoj wrote

Merging with Apple? Wait, who the heck thought THAT was on the cards? Or even close to being under consideration?🤨

3

mrj9 t1_iy8wwb5 wrote

Apple needs to buy discovery Warner hate that Warner is having to costs because they got sold to a company that couldn’t afford them

3

HumanOrAlien OP t1_iy956f7 wrote

That actually makes a lot more sense than Apple buying Disney.

2

KingMario05 t1_iy9eypy wrote

Right? And WB already makes Ted Lasso for them, so the relationship is there.

1

HumanOrAlien OP t1_iy9lc5r wrote

Well that's not an indicator of an established relationship really. All these companies sell shows to each other when they don't want the show for themselves or someone is paying more. Abbott Elementary is made by WB for Disney. Disney makes Central Park for Apple. Sony makes The Boys for Amazon. WB made The Sandman for Netflix. The list can keep going on.

The big reason that Apple would acquire WB for is their library. Being one of the big five Hollywood corporations, they have so much IP and library depth that Apple can exploit for their streaming service.

It's good for WB because it'll be very easy for Apple to get rid of all debt that WB has built over the years. Or maybe Apple can keep WB and spin off all the debt along with Discovery into a different company and keep WB for themselves.

2

billiebol t1_iy5p8ki wrote

The biggest companies on the planet were considering a merge? Holy batman no.

−3

Mu-Relay t1_iy5tpyr wrote

Disney is one of the biggest companies on the planet? Please. Disney's market capitalization is sitting around in the petty cash drawer of Google or Amazon.

Entertainment companies aren't even on the same playing field with big tech. Walt Disney is the king of entertainment and it would be like 17th on the tech list.

17

billiebol t1_iy7cmtr wrote

You are only looking at market capitalization, in terms of brand and reach they don't have many rivals (in entertainment).

0

Mu-Relay t1_iy7pyoh wrote

Right… which is why I said they’re the king of entertainment in the very post you replied to.

3