One can view the Twitter business in multiple ways.

If one sees Twitter as a technology platform that builds on what IRC/XMPP did before, the Disney connection makes zero sense. (E.g. Disney is not a tech company and they wouldn't be the kind of company that would bring back a developer API.)

However, one can also see Twitter as a media entertainment business and the technology platform behind the scenes as an irrelevant detail. Disney does already own the ABC Broadcasting network and ESPN.

Looking at Twitter via the lense of "media outlet" isn't that strange if you look at the top-100 Twitter profiles:

http://twittercounter.com/pages/100

One will notice it's mostly entertainment celebrities including singers Katy Perry (93M), Justin Bieber (88M), Taylor Swift (81M), etc. The list also includes media channels such as Youtube, CNN, ESPN, BBC, etc.

Sure, many people have touted the social ideals of Twitter and its empowerment of user-driven bottom-up journalism. It's a "global consciousness" for news. However, it's interesting to note the relatively low number of followers for famous journalists compared to the entertainment celebrities: Christiane Amanpour (1.8M), Louis Theroux (1.5M), Glenn Greenwald (743k), Malcolm Gladwell (422k), Bob Woodward (15.9k), etc.

If you see Twitter as a media/broadcast business, an acquisition by Google/Apple doesn't make any sense.

If you see Twitter as a technology platform to sell more digital ads, an acquisition by Disney makes no sense.

All that said, we've seen one media company (Rupert Murdoch) buy a web company (MySpace) and that didn't turn out so well for a variety of reasons.