> But I guess they must be then, because Squeak
> has not been
> developed to render Toy Story 2, right? (Would have been
> nice though...)
>

There was a terrific presentation on C-SPAN about two? years ago by
Steve Jobs on the topic of Pixar.  I think it was a shareholders
meeting, it had that feel.  In that presentation he said:

Pixar does the movie.
Disney does the movie business (dist, merchandising, etc.).

and then he talked about how Toy Story was so good that Pixar had a
lot more flexibility in branding and profit negotiation. (A Bug's Life
was also good.  I never saw Toy Story.) But what really impressed me
about the meeting was that Jobs essentially said: "Pixar is about
making money through being the best.  We are the best.  We make and
will make lots of money."

This is a complete about-face from the Next enterprise.  Jobs' focus
there was very philosophical, and not terribly business-oriented.  For
example, selling the Next cubes only to schools was very strange,
since the Next's killer apps should have been DTP and graphic art.
SGI and Apple took the decisive lead and Next went by the wayside,
especially since the cost of a Next was (Machine + 1-Credit class).
It seems to say that with some products in some markets, a
profit-maximizing firm is almost necessary to make the world better
than it is.  I don't think this is true for all products nor all
markets.  I'm actively improving my world with Squeak, but its basis
is non-commercial.  One difference is that Squeak has no cost.

Perhaps with the Mac, Jobs had a very philosophical outlook that
turned out to make great business sense.  Something like: Make it
cheaper by an order of magnitude.  Make it easier to assemble.  That's
what my Mom wants.

-John