Now that WDI is gone along with Walt Disney Animation, we can compare Disney to Universal without much difference. They both have a major TV network and a few cable channels that are nothing special, they both dedicate their theme parks to their movies, neither have a traditional animation department or an in-house design team for their parks, and both rely on an outside source for computer animation (Universal's is DreamWorks, Disney's is Pixar).
Now, ignoring anything Disney has done in the past 60 years (since Disney seems to ignore it), how exactly is Disney better than Universal? I guess when you're making tens of billions of dollars it doesn't matter to the company, but as far as any hope for the future, it's looking bleaker now than when Eisner was in charge. Roy has been paid for his silence, Iger is nothing more than a Eisner puppet, and Matt Ouimet is obsessed with Pixar to a point far beyond excess.
I almost wish Disney were in dire straits like they were in the 1980's. It's ironic because its Disney's success that has become its undoing. As long as they are making a profit and keeping the shareholders happy, nothing will change unless Iger is replaced by a proactive CEO. Disney's transition has happened so gradually, no one really noticed it until it was too late. I want so badly to believe that Disney will get better, but the fact of the matter is, the executives at Disney are happy with the company and that's a very dangerous thing.