Iger Says Avatar Most Likely 2015, Hints at Marvel, More Pirates and Cars

[xdan0920]

What books are you talking about? All the books I have read which have direct quotes from Jobs says that Iger saved the deal. The CNBC documentary and Pixar documentary say the same thing. I would love to believe you but you just seem to have a hatred for Iger for no reason, which you are allowed to have but I respectably disagree.

Here we go again......

 

[Magenta Panther]

I thought this was interesting and largely goes along with a lot of the conversations we have had in this thread and others:

Apple Does Not Bend to Shareholders

Part of what has allowed Apple to generate such impressive returns for its shareholders is that it ignores them. Apple is seen by most as a technology company, when in fact it is a retailer. Thus, Apple's focus is with its customers, where it should be. The best retailers in the world, such as Whole Foods (WFM), Costco (COST), and Nordstrom (JWN), are those that obsess over their customers. Apple has always been a company that is obsessed with the experience that its customers have.

Too many companies frame everything they do as being in the best interests of the shareholders. Financials are especially guilty of this. They under-invest in customer service, arguing that it increases profits. And yet, with the possible exception of American Express (AXP), financials are widely derided as having terrible customer service, all in their pursuit of running the company in the interests of shareholders. But not Apple. Apple runs its business to serve its customers, not its shareholders. Like any good retailer, Apple knows that if it takes care of its customers and provides them with great products, the profits will materialize, and shareholders will be taken care of.

Rightly or wrongly, Steve Jobs largely ignored shareholders in his management of Apple. Under Steve Jobs, there was no talk of a dividend because that was not what Steve Jobs would do. With his passing, many investors have begun to worry that Apple will lose the corporate culture it had under Steve Jobs, which is one of the reasons it has been such a success story. And therein lies a logical fallacy. Investors cannot clamor for a dividend and clamor for Apple to retain the "Jobsian" way of doing things. Steve Jobs would have never initiated a dividend, and if his way of running Apple was the best way, Tim Cook should keep to it as best he can, and pay no dividends.


Source: http://seekingalpha.com/article/435871-apple-arguments-against-a-dividend-stock-split-and-buyback

Steve Jobs understood (just as Walt did) that you don't have to focus on the shareholders if you believe you an exceptional product and experience to offer to your customers. Profits will materialize and shareholders will be happy if you spend the time, energy, and money to focus on what you are delivering. All of this while AAPL stock flirts with $600/share. As a shareholder I'm ok with this model.

This THIS THIS!!!!

I can't STAND Iger! "Oh, we have to have Avatar in Animal Kingdom because our own in-house product can't compete!!!" And then Lion King comes out in theaters in re-release and makes nearly 100 million bucks domestic! Does Iger get it then? Does he? NO!!!!

(stomps off grumbling)

 

[Pitchforkman]

This THIS THIS!!!!

I can't STAND Iger! "Oh, we have to have Avatar in Animal Kingdom because our own in-house product can't compete!!!" And then Lion King comes out in theaters in re-release and makes nearly 100 million bucks domestic! Does Iger get it then? Does he? NO!!!!

(stomps off grumbling)

Hate is a strong word. Disney builds an entire land off of an in house property in Cars and people complain that no one cares about Cars even though it was mega successful. Until plans come out for Avatar isn't it a little soon to be calling for blood?

 

[xdan0920]

Hate is a strong word. Disney builds an entire land off of an in house property in Cars and people complain that no one cares about Cars even though it was mega successful. Until plans come out for Avatar isn't it a little soon to be calling for blood?

Where in his post did he say Hate???

 

[djkidkaz]

Why can't Disney just add Pandas or other animal exhibits? I was at my local zoo last weekend and noticed that Disney is missing some animals that most zoos have, like any kind of bear. The zoo also added a new exhibit for their wolves and I must say they are definitely interesting and fun to watch.

 

[devoy1701]

Why can't Disney just add Pandas or other animal exhibits? I was at my local zoo last weekend and noticed that Disney is missing some animals that most zoos have, like any kind of bear. The zoo also added a new exhibit for their wolves and I must say they are definitely interesting and fun to watch.

because there are no North American creatures at AK. I guess bears and wolves aren't exotic enough. :shrug:

 

[RSoxNo1]

because there are no North American creatures at AK. I guess bears and wolves aren't exotic enough. :shrug:

I think bears are sorely missing from the park. I would love it if they devoted the plot north of Asia to additional animal areas.

 

[devoy1701]

I think bears are sorely missing from the park. I would love it if they devoted the plot north of Asia to additional animal areas.

I don't disagree. But we speak so much about theming on here that I would hate for them to do it just to do it. I would love to see a North American Prairie or Tundra or what have you with Grizzlies, Polar Bear, Wolves, Bison, Moose, Eagles, Condors. We have such amazing wildlife over here. I love love for North America (or even The Americas) be created at AK.

 

[FigmentJedi]

Why not expand Camp Minnie Mickey into an American woods area? Give it the theme of Brownstone Park from the Humphrey Bear cartoons, add animal trails, maybe bring in a dark ride based on the Fearsome Critters of lumberjack folklore (Like the Hodag, Squonk or Catawampus) and you'd have something really nice.

 

[devoy1701]

Why not expand Camp Minnie Mickey into an American woods area? Give it the theme of Brownstone Park from the Humphrey Bear cartoons, add animal trails, maybe bring in a dark ride based on the Fearsome Critters of lumberjack folklore (Like the Hodag, Squonk or Catawampus) and you'd have something really nice.

and the Jackalope? :lookaroun

 

[flynnibus]

Say what you will, I don't think it's apples to oranges at all. Apple charges what consumers let them, and when you have people lining up overnight to buy the iPad3 when they currently own a perfectly good iPad2, that speaks loudly to catering to your consumer and building a strong brand image

It means nothing more than you've created extreme demand for the product. Do you feel the same way about Activision or another company because people line overnight to buy the latest Call of Duty game?

Apple does not actively seek to improve stockholder value yet they continue to do so month to month

I'm sorry dude.. put down the kool aid. They very much are focused on fiscal performance and at the cost of the customer.

What customer LIKES being FORCED to use iTunes for something? Not having 'the best experience with iTunes..' but being FORCED to use it? What customer likes that apple's latest ebook creator tool REQUIRES the product only be sold via iTunes? What customer likes that apple's DRM has be kept to apple only? What customer likes when Apple makes content deals that are exclusive only to apple?

Making a product you believe the customer will want - and being successful at it has NOTHING to do with putting the customer first as a corporate policy/strategy. Not compromising UX for cost are product strategies.. not corporate well being or behavior benchmarks. Doing things like intentionally creating vendor lock-in, squashing competition with legal suits, creating license terms that forbid distribution through competitors, restricting use of external media, failure to license technologies - THESE are corporate strategies focused on putting APPLE'S pockets first and proactively preventing competition or raising the tide for all ships.

Apple doesn't introduce stuff and bring the market forward.. they move their products forward and then actively try to beat back anyone who follows. They don't give customers choice nor intend to improve the community as a whole to benefit customers. They want to control all content and force you to buy through them.. so they can take their 30% cut as a distributor.

As a customer, why can't you watch whatever you want on Apple TV? Because that customer choice would bypass Apple's pockets. So apple constricts you, and people have to hack it to open up the content sources.

And in a sense Disney had absolutely no problem squashing competition in any of it's markets either...form, process, and care always seemed to win out.

No - very different world. Disney isn't out trying to tell Coke you can't sell coke products to Six Flags. Disney isn't out trying to sue other companies into the ground for starting their own theme park. Disney isn't trying to make their highways one-way only to prevent customers from going out to International Drive.

They aren't alike at all.

The focus here is that you absolutely do not have to simply follow the course of answering every beck and call of the Shareholders to increase their value. Simply focus on what you're good at.

And one should realize that customer demand does not mean 'customer focused' - it means product success.

 

[devoy1701]

It means nothing more than you've created extreme demand for the product.

I'm sorry dude.. put down the kool aid. They very much are focused on fiscal performance and at the cost of the customer.

You must have missed the part where I said I don't buy Apple Products.

What customer LIKES being FORCED to use iTunes for something? Not having 'the best experience with iTunes..' but being FORCED to use it? What customer likes that apple's latest ebook creator tool REQUIRES the product only be sold via iTunes? What customer likes that apple's DRM has be kept to apple only? What customer likes when Apple makes content deals that are exclusive only to apple?

Where's the force? If you don't like iTunes, don't use an iProduct. It's part of the package. No one is forcing you to buy an Apple Product. There are other options...even more superior options and cheaper options out there. The price is at a premium because the consumer is willing to pay the premium, not because they are forced to pay it.

Making a product you believe the customer will want - and being successful at it has NOTHING to do with putting the customer first as a corporate policy/strategy. Not compromising UX for cost are product strategies.. not corporate well being or behavior benchmarks. Doing things like intentionally creating vendor lock-in, squashing competition with legal suits, creating license terms that forbid distribution through competitors, restricting use of external media, failure to license technologies - THESE are corporate strategies focused on putting APPLE'S pockets first and proactively preventing competition or raising the tide for all ships.

Apple doesn't introduce stuff and bring the market forward.. they move their products forward and then actively try to beat back anyone who follows. They don't give customers choice nor intend to improve the community as a whole to benefit customers. They want to control all content and force you to buy through them.. so they can take their 30% cut as a distributor.


They aren't alike at all.

Again...many of your examples run parallel with points in history with the Disney company under both Walt and Michael...from the very get-go. Consumers wanted Mickey Mouse...Full Length Animated Feature Films...Theme Parks? Creating Buena Vista Distribution, Buying ABC/ESPN, creating Touchstone, go.com, flirting with Cable Distribution in the 90s? Building On-site hotels and a cruiseline? All focused at increasing the cash flows for Disney and squashing competition or severely increasing the barriers of entry or market share for competition or complementary services.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Why not expand Camp Minnie Mickey into an American woods area? Give it the theme of Brownstone Park from the Humphrey Bear cartoons, add animal trails, maybe bring in a dark ride based on the Fearsome Critters of lumberjack folklore (Like the Hodag, Squonk or Catawampus) and you'd have something really nice.

While I think this could work as a concept (I've suggested a similar North American concept myself), I really think Disney would like to keep the bulk of the live animal attractions in the back of the park.

 

[NoChesterHester]

I think I would actually be okay with Pokemon in Animal Kingdom...Harmony between man and animal? The themes there...Not sure how I'd feel about Castelia City clashing against the lush scenery though... :ROFLOL:

Oh my... "Theme is there." And some say Pandora is a stretch...

I just don't have any hope anymore. We can't have nice stuff can we?

 

[Pitchforkman]

It means nothing more than you've created extreme demand for the product. Do you feel the same way about Activision or another company because people line overnight to buy the latest Call of Duty game?



I'm sorry dude.. put down the kool aid. They very much are focused on fiscal performance and at the cost of the customer.

What customer LIKES being FORCED to use iTunes for something? Not having 'the best experience with iTunes..' but being FORCED to use it? What customer likes that apple's latest ebook creator tool REQUIRES the product only be sold via iTunes? What customer likes that apple's DRM has be kept to apple only? What customer likes when Apple makes content deals that are exclusive only to apple?

Making a product you believe the customer will want - and being successful at it has NOTHING to do with putting the customer first as a corporate policy/strategy. Not compromising UX for cost are product strategies.. not corporate well being or behavior benchmarks. Doing things like intentionally creating vendor lock-in, squashing competition with legal suits, creating license terms that forbid distribution through competitors, restricting use of external media, failure to license technologies - THESE are corporate strategies focused on putting APPLE'S pockets first and proactively preventing competition or raising the tide for all ships.

Apple doesn't introduce stuff and bring the market forward.. they move their products forward and then actively try to beat back anyone who follows. They don't give customers choice nor intend to improve the community as a whole to benefit customers. They want to control all content and force you to buy through them.. so they can take their 30% cut as a distributor.

As a customer, why can't you watch whatever you want on Apple TV? Because that customer choice would bypass Apple's pockets. So apple constricts you, and people have to hack it to open up the content sources.



No - very different world. Disney isn't out trying to tell Coke you can't sell coke products to Six Flags. Disney isn't out trying to sue other companies into the ground for starting their own theme park. Disney isn't trying to make their highways one-way only to prevent customers from going out to International Drive.

They aren't alike at all.



And one should realize that customer demand does not mean 'customer focused' - it means product success.

I agree with everything you say. To add one point. The customers demand Flash support but Apple does not care

 

[flynnibus]

Where's the force? If you don't like iTunes, don't use an iProduct. It's part of the package. No one is forcing you to buy an Apple Product.

Then that isn't looking out for the customer - that is telling them 'my way or the highway'. That isn't customer focus - that is forcing your customers into submission or excluding them all together. Not the sign of customer focused - but corporate focused. All of the things highlighted are not for the better experience of the customer - but to create vendor lock. A scenario intended to benefit the company at the expense of the consumer.

There are other options...even more superior options and cheaper options out there

And apple actively fights to exclude them to prevent causing competition with it's own products. So again, if you say they are so focused on their customer.. how is this behavior benefiting apple's customers again? You already know the answer.. it doesn't.

Again...many of your examples run parallel with points in history with the Disney company under both Walt and Michael...from the very get-go. Consumers wanted Mickey Mouse...Full Length Animated Feature Films...Theme Parks? Creating Buena Vista Distribution, Buying ABC/ESPN, creating Touchstone, go.com, flirting with Cable Distribution in the 90s? Building On-site hotels and a cruiseline? All focused at increasing the cash flows for Disney and squashing competition or severely increasing the barriers of entry or market share for competition or complementary services.

Bringing other parts of your sales chain inhouse is nothing like we are talking about. I'm not wasting any more time on this... buying ABC is not the same as trying to kick CBS off the air or prevent them from making competing content. That's what Apple does.

 

[Pitchforkman]

I agree with you Flynnibus

 

[dsdmbU2]

Definitely don't understand the "hate"on Cars. First one was great for young and old. Have you seen the video of Cars Land at Cali Adventure?! We watched as a family the other night and the responses were "that is sooo cool!!", "when are we going?!", "it looks just like the movie!!", "when is WDW getting that?!". Those were from my wife (age 40) and kids (14 & 11). We are planning on hitting Disneyland sometime in '13.

 

[NoChesterHester]

Then that isn't looking out for the customer - that is telling them 'my way or the highway'. That isn't customer focus - that is forcing your customers into submission or excluding them all together. Not the sign of customer focused - but corporate focused. All of the things highlighted are not for the better experience of the customer - but to create vendor lock. A scenario intended to benefit the company at the expense of the consumer.



And apple actively fights to exclude them to prevent causing competition with it's own products. So again, if you say they are so focused on their customer.. how is this behavior benefiting apple's customers again? You already know the answer.. it doesn't.



Bringing other parts of your sales chain inhouse is nothing like we are talking about. I'm not wasting any more time on this... buying ABC is not the same as trying to kick CBS off the air or prevent them from making competing content. That's what Apple does.

But there IS a choice - android. Full choice. We can chose Apple or Android. Or Windows on Nokia for that matter (fantastic by the way).

Here is the issue I have with Android since you are on this anti Apple kick. Seriously consider this:

Apple's product is the device I hold in my hand. Google's product is me. They are focused on selling me and my information to best achieve maximum revenue.

I've used both. I choose Apple. I still use Google software products.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

 

[flavious27]

Definitely don't understand the "hate"on Cars. First one was great for young and old. Have you seen the video of Cars Land at Cali Adventure?! We watched as a family the other night and the responses were "that is sooo cool!!", "when are we going?!", "it looks just like the movie!!", "when is WDW getting that?!". Those were from my wife (age 40) and kids (14 & 11). We are planning on hitting Disneyland sometime in '13.

I think most of us do not have a problem with the first cars movie, it is the way that it is a franchise now. Along with that, cars land should stay at DL because cloning attractions cheapens them and are cop-outs.