Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Las Vegas Sphere reports $98.4M loss; CFO quits

lasvegassun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 201 posts

Re: Las Vegas Sphere reports $98.4M loss; CFO quits

#141

Post by I_Am_Nous »

sfitz wrote: post #107
s3p wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't make any sense. If you were already buzzed before going, then you would need a cheaper price to continue drinking, since you already have some in you. If you were dead sober and wanted to drink, then it makes sense to shell out the money.

If you were already buzzed before going, you're probably not making super sound financial decisions inside.

It's Vegas, people don't go there to make sound financial decisions :P

Possible counter-strategy is that the prices are high so people stay relatively tame inside. Who wants to pay ($20/unit of alcohol) to even try to get drunk?

Re: Las Vegas Sphere reports $98.4M loss; CFO quits

#142

Post by krallja »

gsk22 wrote: post #118
everforward wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you can imagine an IMAX screen wrapping all the way over your head you are on the way. Those actually do exist! [1] That picture isn't great, but if you search for "Imax Dome" there's some videos and stuff. I still remember watching a movie in one that was kinda like an early racing drone flying through a canyon and being awed as a kid. They're projector based, rather than curved screens. The first one was built…

Wait, I thought the dome style was IMAX? What is a non-dome Imax theater like then?

A big flat screen. Indianapolis had both curved (Children's Museum) and flat (Indiana State Museum) IMAX theaters for a while, but the Children's Museum got rid of theirs and put a dinosaur exhibit in the old dome.

Re: Las Vegas Sphere reports $98.4M loss; CFO quits

#143

Post by gopher_space »

jzb wrote: post #47
Havoc wrote: post #37

Initially thought it would be a useless gimmick but judging by social media reaction it seems that was wrong. It’s popular and I suspect on track to become a unique attraction

I have a friend who went to see the U2 show there and they had lots of praise for it as a venue. U2 isn't quite interesting enough to me for me to pay for the tickets and travel, but if a band I'm really into were playing there... I'd probably find the money. (If any booking agents or whatever are reading this... get The Cure to do a residency and I'm there. If you can get the Talking Heads to do a reunion show there…

Some bands you see live because you like their music, and some bands you see live because it's a party. U2 has been working on the multimedia side of their live performance for a few decades and they've come up with quite a show.

Re: Las Vegas Sphere reports $98.4M loss; CFO quits

#144

Post by brewdad »

tootie wrote: post #110
t3rabytes wrote: post #3

I gotta be honest, I'm not sure what was expected? They spent $2b building this thing, it's brand new tech, it didn't host many shows last quarter (it was open for 1? full month of the quarter). I still think The Sphere is super damn cool and I can't wait to go to an event there.

I can imagine a ton of logistical constraints. They have U2 doing a residence, and I'd guess that residences are going to be the only options. Designing visuals on such a unique and complex display to match a specific artist is at least a few person-months of effort. You have to plan shows very far in advance and spend a lot of money on show production. This likely excludes anyone but the top-tier performers. And the…

Yes the design of the Sphere means it will never be a successful venue for touring acts. Any entertainer performing there will have to be committed to at least a month of shows, probably more.

That said, it's a unique concert experience even setting the visuals aside. The sound is immersive, coming from all around you rather than the wall of sound typical of most concerts. As such, while still plenty loud, your ears are not completely destroyed by the end of the night should you forget your hearing protection.

Re: Las Vegas Sphere reports $98.4M loss; CFO quits

#145

Post by dragonwriter »

jonathankoren wrote: post #140
whycome wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but it must have been a giant league with lots of teams. ...Right? (9 teams...) Now, their name is simple "the red-blacks" and is for the colors of their uniforms. Toronto's soccer team in Major League Soccer is called "Toronto FC" or "Toronto Football Club". Calgary: "Cavalry FC" which seems extra confusing when spoken. Sports naming is so weird.

MLS naming is the worst ! Originally, it was perfectly normal North American naming convention, $PLACE $NOUN. Then sometime in the aughts, they started bringing in boring European names, and worse yet, just aping them for no reason. Only the pretentious call soccer “football” in North America, and no one calls themselves a “sports club”. Even the Baseball Club of Seattle, doesn’t call themselves “Seattle BC”. They’re…

> Only the pretentious call soccer “football” in North America,

Lots of people whose cultural origin isn't in the US or Canada do, and that overlaps a lot with the people who care about soccer at all.

Re: Las Vegas Sphere reports $98.4M loss; CFO quits

#146

Post by yieldcrv »

logicalmonster wrote: post #135
yieldcrv wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally don’t understand how to have a phantom like vendetta because of a person’s behavior, following them around with negativity their whole career. Like, they made something awesome and need to monetize it. Focus on the awesome thing. The entity is going to pay those involved and they might sell shares for a higher price, thats how our system works. Suddenly caring only because you dont like 1 of those stakeh…

1) I'm not cancelling the Sphere. I'm just telling you I don't like Dolan but still like the Sphere and think it's worth seeing. That point of view is pretty close to the opposite of cancelling somebody. 2) As far as criticizing people, maybe a reasonable rule of thumb is that if you're either in public office or wealthy enough to have "fuck you money", you're a reasonable target of receiving public comments on your…

I understood your comment as you describe it

Regarding point 2, I still cant be compelled to care. I mean, in the context of an individual sure, but your context is the business with this leading disclaimer about the individual.

Re: Las Vegas Sphere reports $98.4M loss; CFO quits

#147

Post by brewdad »

chikitabanana wrote: post #136
725686 wrote: post #48

If you think The Sphere is cool from the outside, wait until you see the inside. The humongous spherical screen in the inside is amazing (16K resolution according to Wikipedia). U2 is sold out, and the tickets are not cheap (I payed $500 for a partially obstructed view of the screen, others run at $1,500), plus the "Sphere experience" so I think it will pay out. There is also "The Sphere Experience" movie at $50 a po…

Curious, what does partially obstructed mean in the context of the sphere?

There are seats in the lower section that sit partially underneath the second level. You will get a great view of the band and stage but lose some of the projections going on all around you.

We sat in the 5th row of the 300 level. The visuals were amazing there but the stage was quite far away. If you can afford it, something towards the front of the 200 section would be the sweet spot between being closer to the stage and positioned to be fully immersed in the lights show.

Re: Las Vegas Sphere reports $98.4M loss; CFO quits

#148

Post by dragonwriter »

s3p wrote: post #90
cflewis wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the Strip, I'd assume you were pretty buzzed before you rolled up. That's probably part of the math here.

That doesn't make any sense. If you were already buzzed before going, then you would need a cheaper price to continue drinking, since you already have some in you. If you were dead sober and wanted to drink, then it makes sense to shell out the money.

> If you were already buzzed before going, then you would need a cheaper price to continue drinking

Because judgement and rational decision making are things that already being under the influence of alochol increases, rather than the opposite?

Re: Las Vegas Sphere reports $98.4M loss; CFO quits

#149

Post by userinanother »

gadders wrote: post #98
t3rabytes wrote: post #3

I gotta be honest, I'm not sure what was expected? They spent $2b building this thing, it's brand new tech, it didn't host many shows last quarter (it was open for 1? full month of the quarter). I still think The Sphere is super damn cool and I can't wait to go to an event there.

This seems to be a pattern for expensive infra projects: - Original company builds expensive piece of infrastructure - Original company fails to make money on expensive piece of infrastructure - Original company goes bust - New company buys infrastructure cheap - New company manages to run a profitable business See Eurotunnel, Iridium, probably others I've forgotten.

Started with the railroads

Re: Las Vegas Sphere reports $98.4M loss; CFO quits

#150

Post by plagiarist »

erulabs wrote: post #70
mmanfrin wrote: post #28

It was open for 2 days of the fiscal quarter. The CFO quit after being yelled at by the notoriously combative CEO. The news has been running with this headline because it's drawing clicks but it's not really painting an accurate picture.

Isn’t “not screaming your executive into quitting” kind of a leaders main job?

The CEO's job is only to secure the straps on the golden parachute before they start hammering on the engine in mid-flight. Once the parachute is on, screaming at people is actually a pretty good hammer.

Sources: Yahoo, Tumblr, Twitter, and so on.

Post reply on HN