Disney CEO Bob Iger resigns from Apple board as streaming wars heat up

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 69
    I think Iger was pissed at Apple+ pricing.

  • Reply 42 of 69
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,573member
    seanismorris said:
    Disney doesn’t need to play Apple anything.  They’ll do what Netflix does and have the signup and payment outside of the App.

    Disney has already said their Disney+ service was coming to iOS devices and they were going to allow in-app subscriptions. Unlike Netflix who has to squeeze every dollar out of their service in an attempt to remain sustainable, Disney has many other sources of revenue to sustain a video streaming service, mainly box office revenue.



    Kind of misleading... They have not stopped paying their Apple "tax". Netflix made a change to their app so new users cannot signup directly. Apple would still get their cut of that 853m (or any difference based on subscription changes). Eventually that will disappear, but not before Apple finds a way to make up that lost revenue.

    seanismorris said:
    They’re in an unsustainable business model.  Creating content, and licensing the rest is to expensive...  They probably should have acquired other companies when growth looked good.

    Spotify has the same problem (and they are a service that truly competes [with Apple]).
    edited September 2019
  • Reply 43 of 69
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,012member
    jimh2 said:
    Apple will be getting skim off of Disney’s streaming offer. Probably 15% or whatever the rate is for subscription services. It is unfortunate that Apple and Disney did not combine efforts. 

    Disney’s streaming catalog is deep and even more so with the purchase of 20th Century Fox’s library along with all the channels Disney owns. Disney fans are like Apple fans...they love the product and will pay for it. Many will be surprised at the number of subscribers they will get. It’s another nail in the coffin for cable. 
    Disney doesn’t need to play Apple anything.  They’ll do what Netflix does and have the signup and payment outside of the App.

    The cable/wireless companies bought content companies... they’ve prepared for the future.  The pipe won’t matter as long as you have the speeds to stream (your) content.  

    It’s all about consolidation and bundling.  Dish is the weird one.  Instead of acquiring content they bought spectrum and phone subscribers (business) that was spun off from the Sprint/T-Mobile merger.  They’re going to end up paying more for content.  Maybe they’ll do a deal with Hulu/Disney.  Anyone want to sign up for Disney Mobile... that was once Dish?

    Apple will ride along on whoever’s pipe, they’re figuring they can bundle other services, and not pay for the expensive infrastructure... and profit just fine.

    Netflix is also interesting.  No big player wants to buy them... the evaluation is to high.  
    FYI: In 2019Netflix is expected to generate a cash loss of $3.5 billion.May 26, 2019 (Forbes)

    They’re in an unsustainable business model.  Creating content, and licensing the rest is to expensive...  They probably should have acquired other companies when growth looked good.  Now they probably need to raise prices to survive, but they can’t without tanking subscriber numbers.  Wait for the stock to recover and Short the @#$& out of it.


    Does anyone see the irony when comparing all this consolidation with Apple's vertical business plan? The government complains about Apple being a monopoly yet companies like Comcast and Disney are allowed to buy whatever companies they want to take control over large parts of content and content delivery capabilities? Check out who Comcast and Disney own. This is why Apple is having a difficult time providing content. None of the content owners want to let Apple get into their trillion dollar businesses.
    anantksundaram
  • Reply 44 of 69
    kestral said:
    mobird said:
    Now if only the buffoon Al Gore would take a hike.
    Al Gore created climate change alarmism to get rich off the global warming pyramid scheme. He should be in jail for fraud.
    He “created” it?

    Damn, ignorance knows no bounds. 
    larryjwmacxpressSolimobirdmontrosemacsurahararoundaboutnowsuddenly newtonmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 45 of 69
    FolioFolio Posts: 698member
    Headline: Mowgli and Iger the Tiger no longer play on board with Apple
  • Reply 46 of 69
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,573member
    kestral said:
    mobird said:
    Now if only the buffoon Al Gore would take a hike.
    Al Gore created climate change alarmism to get rich off the global warming pyramid scheme. He should be in jail for fraud.

    You must work for the oil industry?

    Whether you believe in global warming or not, don't you think humanity should take more of an interest in preserving the environment rather than raping it for profit? The "natural resources" lobby has done a bang up job convincing the less educated and greedy (Americans) that global warming is not a thing.
    edited September 2019 montrosemacsmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 47 of 69
    mobird said:
    Now if only the buffoon Al Gore would take a hike.
    I suppose I should not be shocked at the animosity toward Al Gore. The Republican rumor machine did a great job convincing the majority of Americans that presidential candidate Al Gore was incompetent and undeservedly took credit for the internet, and presidential candidate John Kerry didn't deserve war hero status. Both lies. In a fact-free world in which we've have lived for 40 years (it's not a recent phenomenon), you're probably right.

    However, Al Gore's appropriateness to be on the Apple Board cannot be denied -- if facts have any value. I'll give the key evidence as to Gore's contributions from two of those who architected the Internet.

    -----------------------------
    Al Gore and the Internet

    By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf
    Dated: 28 Sep 2000

    Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development. 

    No one person or even small group of persons exclusively invented the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore’s contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President.  No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.  

    Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role.  He said: “During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet.”  We don’t think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he invented the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore’s initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening.  We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.

    As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system.  He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept.  Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication.  As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.

    As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an Interagency Network.  Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush’s administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991.  This Gore Act supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.

    As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it.  He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries.  Today, approximately 95% of our nations schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation.

    There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet’s rapid growth since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political support for its privatization and continued support for research in advanced networking technology.  No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President.  Gore has been a clear champion of this effort, both in the councils of government and with the public at large.  

    The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of the value of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world. 
    -------------


    edited September 2019 roundaboutnowRayz2016muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 48 of 69
    As I've been saying for years, Disney is the biggest threat to Apple over the next ten years. Nothing wrong with that. Competition is good. But you can't have major competitors sharing members on their respective boards of directors because that's a conflict of interest.

    Disney is competing with Apple (very soon) on selling streaming video, and Disney is likely to crush Apple (into Apple Sauce) in this area. But Disney also owns the company that makes Hero Pro cameras, and it's a small step for them to take that capacity and start producing hardware like a video streamer. Because of Disney's content, they could probably crush both the Apple TV hardware and Apple TV+ services. And maybe other things like Apple Arcade, or Apple News, in a few years.
    Disney is no threat to Apple with competition only in the area of streaming content now. However, Iger really did need to resign from the Board because his belief he could recluse himself from meetings where there would be conflict became untenable. 

    I would think in the coming years, Apple's focus on show content will take up so much of the Board's agenda that Iger and the rest of the Board found his presence unacceptable.

    I think it is important to note that Iger resigned. This tells me, as I imply above, how important Apple's entry into content will become. If content was just an Apple hobby, Iger could have stayed on the Board, but recluse himself. The resignation is proof otherwise.
  • Reply 49 of 69
    I think that this was bound to happen. I’ve been less than impressed by Disney/ABC/ESPN’s lack of serious commitment to making their content available in AppleTV. It took them the longest amount of time, and even then it’s been grudging. 

    Good riddance. 
    Steve Jobs’ wife still holds a huge amount of Disney stock. I have to think she doesn’t get as involved as Steve did to maintain good Apple-Disney relations, especially with her being such a foolish spender of the family fortune on silver-spoon privileged Lefty causes.

    One of her more recent wastes of money:  “On July 28, 2017, Powell Jobs' organization Emerson Collective (based in Palo Alto, California) acquired majority ownership of The Atlantic.”*

    *(This from her Wikipedia page)
    edited September 2019
  • Reply 50 of 69
    kestral said:
    mobird said:
    Now if only the buffoon Al Gore would take a hike.
    Al Gore created climate change alarmism to get rich off the global warming pyramid scheme. He should be in jail for fraud.
    Moron. You Americans must be the only country in the world denying the facts of this cataclysmic disaster, this mass extintion that you, in the first place, are causing to the whole human race. All because it may cost you... money ... to recognize the truth. All to turn on your HVAC's and trash your 1k$ phones every year... I would say you will regret this selfish attitude in 10 years... but surely you won't, no matter what evidence is on front of your face, you will prefer blindness if to be honest for once may prive you of minutes looking at your brand-new glass toy.
    Even a 16 years old girl is able to acknowledge this. But not you, the "greatest country in the world"... 
    larryjwmontrosemacsuraharamuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 51 of 69
    normmnormm Posts: 653member
    Disney doesn’t need to play Apple anything.  They’ll do what Netflix does and have the signup and payment outside of the App.
    Apple should dramatically reduce the percentage they charge the highest volume media distributors for subscriptions and media purchases.  Then companies like Netflix and Amazon wouldn't damage the iOS user experience by requiring us to leave the app to purchase content, and Apple would get something from them rather than nothing.


  • Reply 52 of 69
    mieswall said:
    kestral said:
    mobird said:
    Now if only the buffoon Al Gore would take a hike.
    Al Gore created climate change alarmism to get rich off the global warming pyramid scheme. He should be in jail for fraud.
    Moron. You Americans must be the only country in the world denying the facts of this cataclysmic disaster, this mass extintion that you, in the first place, are causing to the whole human race. All because it may cost you... money ... to recognize the truth. All to turn on your HVAC's and trash your 1k$ phones every year... I would say you will regret this selfish attitude in 10 years... but surely you won't, no matter what evidence is on front of your face, you will prefer blindness if to be honest for once may prive you of minutes looking at your brand-new glass toy.
    Even a 16 years old girl is able to acknowledge this. But not you, the "greatest country in the world"... 
    This wins the coveted Dumbest Post of the Week.
    cornchipmobird
  • Reply 53 of 69
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 2,071member
    jdw said:
    It took him too long.  He should have resigned (or been forced to resign) many months ago when he first learned of Apple's plans.  He remained because he gets paid way too much as a board member at Apple, and because he wanted to glean info.  The same thing happen with Eric Schmidt of Google, resigning quite a while after he learned of the iPhone.  I still feel that there's a lot of iPhone in Android because of Schmidt's board presence.  Board members are privy to everything!
    Probably Cook and Apple's are the one's who have benefited from being able to ask him about the Television industry.    I don't expect much from Apple TV coming from Cook and Cue.    At  least Apple can easily afford to lose a Billion or two a year for 5-10 years as they build up Content and subscriber's (that actually pay instead of getting it free with a purchase).   Apple seems to want to aim their content to be more mature than Disney and less adult than HBO.     I really see HBO as their main competition because HBO is known for the quality of their programs. 
  • Reply 54 of 69
    I think that this was bound to happen. I’ve been less than impressed by Disney/ABC/ESPN’s lack of serious commitment to making their content available in AppleTV. It took them the longest amount of time, and even then it’s been grudging. 

    Good riddance. 
    Steve Jobs’ wife still holds a huge amount of Disney stock. I have to think she doesn’t get as involved as Steve did to maintain good Apple-Disney relations, especially with her being such a foolish spender of the family fortune on silver-spoon privileged Lefty causes.

    One of her more recent wastes of money:  “On July 28, 2017, Powell Jobs' organization Emerson Collective (based in Palo Alto, California) acquired majority ownership of The Atlantic.”*

    *(This from her Wikipedia page)
    It’s her money, so she can do with it as she pleases. Give to ‘lefty’ (or righty) causes. Burn it she wants to.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 55 of 69
    jdwjdw Posts: 1,085member
    k2kw said:
    jdw said:
    It took him too long.  He should have resigned (or been forced to resign) many months ago when he first learned of Apple's plans.  He remained because he gets paid way too much as a board member at Apple, and because he wanted to glean info.  The same thing happen with Eric Schmidt of Google, resigning quite a while after he learned of the iPhone.  I still feel that there's a lot of iPhone in Android because of Schmidt's board presence.  Board members are privy to everything!
    Probably Cook and Apple's are the one's who have benefited from being able to ask him about the Television industry.
    I personally don't think so.  Think about it logically.  Iger is a board member but was under no obligation to share his wealth of knowledge about a streaming service with Cook or Apple.  For all we know, he offered nothing to Apple in that regard because he would have done a disservice to Disney if he had.  However, Iger's presence on the board gave him access to secret info about Apple's early plans for their own streaming service.  It was that very conflict of interest that forced him to resign from Apple's board.  And that's fine and well, but as I said before, he resigned too late.  Iger already has enough insider info on Apple to give Disney an unfair advantage, on top of their already great collection of streaming content -- content that in an of itself is more appealing than Apple's streaming service right now.  How Iger will use that insider info is unknown, but if Google and Android and the iPhone is a lesson to us, we can see that Iger will do whatever it takes to ensure his service tramples Apple's. Google did the same with Android, having had board member level access to secret iPhone details.
  • Reply 56 of 69
    jdw said:
    k2kw said:
    jdw said:
    It took him too long.  He should have resigned (or been forced to resign) many months ago when he first learned of Apple's plans.  He remained because he gets paid way too much as a board member at Apple, and because he wanted to glean info.  The same thing happen with Eric Schmidt of Google, resigning quite a while after he learned of the iPhone.  I still feel that there's a lot of iPhone in Android because of Schmidt's board presence.  Board members are privy to everything!
    Probably Cook and Apple's are the one's who have benefited from being able to ask him about the Television industry.
    I personally don't think so.  Think about it logically.  Iger is a board member but was under no obligation to share his wealth of knowledge about a streaming service with Cook or Apple.  For all we know, he offered nothing to Apple in that regard because he would have done a disservice to Disney if he had.  However, Iger's presence on the board gave him access to secret info about Apple's early plans for their own streaming service.  It was that very conflict of interest that forced him to resign from Apple's board.  And that's fine and well, but as I said before, he resigned too late.  Iger already has enough insider info on Apple to give Disney an unfair advantage, on top of their already great collection of streaming content -- content that in an of itself is more appealing than Apple's streaming service right now.  How Iger will use that insider info is unknown, but if Google and Android and the iPhone is a lesson to us, we can see that Iger will do whatever it takes to ensure his service tramples Apple's. Google did the same with Android, having had board member level access to secret iPhone details.
    You have no clue if this is the case. There is equally no reason to believe that Iger was recused by the Board when there conversations about such products. Perhaps the recusals were increasing to the point where he served no effective purpose anymore on the board.

    No one knows that posts here.
    edited September 2019 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 57 of 69
    More fake news. Apple and Disney aren't going head to head. It isn't like the "Highlander" movie where in the end, "there can only be one." Apple and Disney are complementary and that's why Disney is placing their channel on the new Apple TV app and giving Apple a cut of the profits. Look to see them work even closer with perhaps a bundle with ESPN, etc., and Apple. Contrast that with Netflix who refused to have a channel, refused to let their data integrate with Apple TV for keeping track of your shows, and has removed the ability for new users to bill through Apple.
  • Reply 58 of 69
    Iger is the second high-profile Apple board member to leave in the past decade due to potential conflicts of interest. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt resigned from his duties at Apple in 2009 as the search giant unleashed its Android mobile operating system as a market competitor to iPhone.
    Strictly speaking, April 2009 - September 2019 is more than a decade.
  • Reply 59 of 69
    That sucks. Was hoping Iger took over Apple after Cook. I like the fact he spends money lol.

    I do wish Jobs was around. Apple TV+ and Disney+ would have likely been one service....
    You know that Iger is 9 years older than Cook, right?  Cook is likely to be CEO of Apple well after Iger has retired.
  • Reply 60 of 69
    Soli said:
    A decade or so ago I recall reading that for each board meeting they get paid about $127,000. Just to sit in a room for an hour or two, with all things catered, even a private jet to get them to the meeting. Is their input really that important that it's well over a half-million dollar per board member per year?
    There’s a great deal of evidence on average amount of time spent by a typical Fortune 500 board members on the company on whose board they sit: it’s about one month. I think that ~$500K per year is not a whole heck of a lot for a group of people who are supposed to be looking over the shoulders of a CEO. 
    One month?  One month??  So you actually believe that Tim Cook is devoted 8% of his energy to Nike and 92% from Apple (1 month of 12 and 11 months, respectively)?  I expect it's more like 2% (1 week a year).
Sign In or Register to comment.