CaptainWinter
Active Member
What I'm having trouble understanding, and never understood in regard to WoL, is that in no other Disney park is something just shuttered due to no sponsorship. I don't think there's very much sponsorship in MK or AK that I can recall with a few exceptions (Small World, Space Mtn, and I think GE used to sponsor CoP). Yet everything there pretty much remains open. Why not do without sponsorship altogether?
My guess is that Disney simply doesn't want to open the floodgates of paying for all those pavilions themselves. I was personally surprised when they assumed Living Seas. They could drop all their sponsors, sure, but it's less profit for them -- perhaps a lot less.
Saying that, I'm totally against Apple having any presence in the parks. I'm not a fan of their products, after a bad expereience with an ipod mini (my 1st and only Apple product), and the overtaking of the parks to the mighty I-things is something that gives me the chills.
No such apprehension here. (I've owned some clunky Kodak cameras, but the original Imagination was a treat. I think the relationship between a company's products and its Epcot presence is not very direct.) Mostly what the sponsors provide is financial support, and that's a role Apple can fill very very well. Plus Apple, as image-conscious as it is, would never want their name on a substandard attraction.