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.
Understatement of the year. Dolan successfully destroyed 2 major sports franchises (Knicks and Rangers) he spent millions on acquiring and managing.
He is also using facial recognition to ban all employees of law firms suing MSG (his company) from going to any of their properties, and NY State is considering pulling his liquor license as a result.
The only reason he's solvent is because the Madison Square Garden is basically el dorado (financially speaking) and he inherited a bunch of money from his father (the founder of HBO and Cablevision)
Maybe the funniest and most pathetic thing about Dolan is that his true love would appear to be his band (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JD_%26_The_Straight_Shot). It's basically the best session musicians inherited money can buy backing a frontman whose singing has been described as "karaoke-grade" and "like he's trying not to cough".
And his employees are expected to attend his shows. And he checks on this.
This if fucking hilarious. What a clown. I knew of him before, but I didn't know the full depth of the delusion and megalomania. He rivals Zuck in later which is an impressive achievement.
I had to look up "which rangers sports team" because the one from Texas just won the world series in baseball and Rangers FC doesn't seem to be doing too bad.
Do sports teams really have a limit on available names?
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.
Doh your right. I totally forgot about Toronto FC and Vancouver FC. The early 2010s are a haze for me. I still stand by the brand management argument though.
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 the Mariners. Half of the league’s names are an insult to North American sports culture.
A special place in sports hell is set for the dude that named Real Salt Lake. He explicitly aped Real Madrid because he’s such a fan. Dude. We literally fought a war to overthrow a monarchy.
Those European style names are because international clubs began investing in MLS.
The Abu Dhabi royal family's fund that owns Man City has 80% ownership of NYCFC, who started the "FC" naming trend in MLS, and plenty of other MLS clubs are owned by people who also own European clubs.
> Half of the league’s names are an insult to North American sports culture
What the hell is "North American sports culture".
Naming conventions in Soccer/Football have always been European based because it is the primary region for prestige Soccer.
It's like complaining about Israeli or Chinese Basketball leagues using NBA style names and jerseys or Mexican College Football (yes that is a very popular thing there, and the Big12 is considering adding them to the conference) using Big10/Big12/Pac12 style branding and stadiums despite soccer being more popular in those places
The aesthetic matters from a branding perspective.
Speaking of weird names, I've always been fascinated about how the football (soccer) team the Young Boys decided to go with that. I'm not about to just Google that though. I don't need my browser history polluted with the types of wrong results that would come up.
I think you'd have to be an NHL insider to know that.
Dolan's Wikipedia page blames him for the post-94 dip, which may be fair, but if that's the case, then he's seen them through two rebuilds, one of which culminated with a Stanley Cup Finals appearance (2014, if I recall). I'll never forgive him for not getting Hank a Cup, but sometimes these things can't be helped. Hockey is fickle.
Many feel the opposite. How can you ensure people are working, unless they truly fear you? Make a mistake and you are in deep, deep trouble, buddy. Straight to the pit!
History has shown that it's a graceful balancing of carrot and stick that works the best with intelligent biological organisms. The field of psychology generally corroborates this, I think.
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.
This was my confusion seeing the headline, there is no way the people building this did not realize that this was an "investment" and would take time to make money?!?
Even once it's built you have some logistical things to figure out to start making profit day by day before taking into account the investment.
The real story is apparently the asshole CEO, not the loss.
Exactly. It posted millions of revenue from just two nights of U2. I've seen both shows there. It's a neat venue. Everyone agrees and would go back. The sky is the limit. This is a garbage headline.
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.
Same reaction here. For such a huge investment wouldn't you expect it to take some time before it becomes profitable?
Live shows are only one piece of the puzzle. I really want to go see the "postcard from earth" short film they made especially for the Sphere. The filming required all kinds of specialized camera gear to take full advantage of the resolution and 3d viewing inside, so it's no wonder there isn't going to be an immediate catalog of titles to choose from for selling more tickets.
They're also basically killing any locals going with the cost of concessions and probably driving a lot of people to just not spend any money there. At $40 for a double shot and $20 for a beer, I'd be drinking before I got to the venue if that were my thing.
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.
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?
Yea anyone who's visited Vegas knows that from the time your plane lands to when you takeoff, you're basically just spewing money to everyone constantly. I think there are at least 5-10 people just between your airline gate and your hotel room door with their hands out looking for tips.
Every place is expensive if you go for a few days as a tourist. SF is definitely more expensive. I lived in Vegas as a regular dweller, near the Mantis in downtown, for a few months, nothing particularly expensive there. To the contrary, you get free live concerts every day and basically free marijuana - just inhale the air around you!
My boss came back from a vendor conference in Vegas recently and went to the sphere. He said in the 90s you could go and find a cheap all you can eat buffet full of steak and it was like $10 to get in. Drinks were $2 or something like that. But now you can expect to spend $40-$50 per meal for a single person.
That's nearly Ibiza prices.... which is OK if everyone is doing the same thing (well, I say OK, you know what I mean). But if there's any other option, no-one's going there. I've only been once to Vegas, but I don't remember it being pricy.
The strip itself is roughly Palo Alto prices at small town truck stop quality. Small town truck stops are consistent and that’s a great thing, but McDonalds restaurants are always consistent too. You can find a very expensive smoky old fashioned (or whatever the fashionable cocktail is) pretty well everywhere and you won’t always be able to tell where you are.
Off strip is a lot more attractive both in terms of price and quality. But it’s harder to access unless you have trusted friends who live in Vegas. Locals seem to avoid the strip and seem to try to keep the strip away from their trusted spots!
The strip is pricey, and has very little variety. The art district a couple of miles away and there are restaurants and bars with normal prices and great selection.
Ssshhh. I just discovered the Arts District on my visit last month. Let's not let it turn into what the rest of The Strip and old downtown have become.
BTW, The Sphere is amazing and U2 still puts on a good show. I did not partake in any $20 beers though.
No, it was a long time ago (late 90s?). The hotel was cheap (Excalibur!), and other than seeing the Blue Man Group, everything else was very cheap. All you can eat breakfast was $10 and I ate so much I didn't eat again for 24 hours.
Oh yeah those days are long gone. At least on the strip.
Back then you could find $5 blackjack tables, and $3.99 buffets. Now a typical buffet on the strip will be $80 a person or something like that. The cheap blackjack tables are $25 a hand.
>They're also basically killing any locals going with the cost of concessions
Local residents are absolutely not the target audience for Vegas casinos and other attractions.
Vegas casinos offers super-cheap food and drink to lure gamblers. Locals take advantage of said low prices, but that's a side effect of the main purpose which is to keep tourists near the card tables and slot machines. The Sphere does not have gambling, thus needs the food and drink to pay their own way.
Not only is it brand new, any prospective performance looking to book there is going to have to essentially create a bespoke show for that single venue only, that will not be able to be played anywhere else what with the big ass spherical screen being the primary differentiator.
In my mind this is like if you were to build the first IMAX theater if IMAX wasn't already a thing. You'd basically be asking Hollywood to create a special version of a movie for your single venue. Like... I'm sure some will take that up, as evident by it hosting a few shows. But it can't possibly be an "open every night" situation, the economics just don't make sense for that.
I would assume so but that means the venue itself is then subsidizing the cost of the performance, which means the tickets/refreshments/etc have to be more expensive.
And like, I want to emphasize: this thing is extremely cool. I love shit like this. I wish we could have more really cool things like this. But when your entire thrust is to make money... I mean I wish them all the success in the world but you'll have to put me down as a skeptic if they'll be able to, especially given how razor thin margins tend to be in the entertainment sector when the venue can just host regular ass shows that any venue can.
I saw both the U2 show and Postcard from Earth movie. Both were amazing in their own way, but the movie was a better demonstration of the technology if you have to choose one (and if you're not a big U2 fan).
The Sphere partnered with an immersive sound company Holoplot to design and build the sound system (https://holoplot.com/news/sphere-immersive-sound-powered-by-...) - this was very impressive during the movie and you could locate sound coming from exactly where the objects were on the screen in a way that I've not experienced before.
The experience was similar to wearing a VR headset since the screen covers almost your entire field of view, but the sound system significantly improved the feeling of immersion. During the movie, the system also pushed air onto the audience to simulate wind in a convincing way.
Yes, but they’ve said it isn’t, which is apparently sufficient even if you run an ad saying “InvestCo is great, you can make a ton of money from them [terms & conditions apply, you may actually lose money instead, not investment advice]”
Makes you wonder if that wasn't the plan all along. The original company has a lot of investors who would share a big percentage of the profits if it is successful. Those in charge fix things so that those investors are shed and all the profits are instead funneled to entities they control exclusively.
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 exterior is basically just a giant ad. It's not a revenue-generator since you don't need tickets to see it.
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.
It seems the operating loss may have been expected for the quarter and the CFO's departure could be unrelated. Always difficult to tell in these scenarios but the Sphere officially opened on September 29th. I find it hard to believe they expected to be in the black within less than 45 days.
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 pop.
A Capacity of about 19,000 people.
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.
- Ranji (CFO) suddenly quit after a bout of yelling and screaming from CEO James Dolan.
- Revenue for the quarter included $4.1 million in event revenue — those two sold out U2 shows, $2.6 million from suite licensing and advertising on the Sphere exosphere.
However, it shows that 1 show fetches $2M. 30 shows in 90 days (3 shows in a week) would fetch $60M.Eliminating $98M/Q loss may not be that hard.
The vegas strip is full of real estate stories where a major undertaking flops initially but gets turned around. The stratosphere was built, sold at a huge loss, and then flipped for an enormous profit (I'm sure there's way more to the story that others are aware of). I wouldn't be surprised if the Sphere ends up the same. I'm really excited to see it, it's very cool thinking about the potential for promoting visual art.
It's a mathematical certainty that there will always be real estate that is "self sufficient" without a debt load (or with a lesser one) but can't sustain the current load.
Something tells me there is a tax avoidance scheme whereby these investments are intentionally engineered failures that generate the financial manipulators shockingly high paybacks.
I was thinking the opposite: like it's some strange way to pay the "true cost" of the property, by first paying inflation-saddles prices, going bankrupt in the process and leave the first investors holding the bag.
From what I understand you can't scalp, they scan ID. There are many tik toks of people buying tickets from either 3rd parties online or just scalpers and they are rejected at check in.
Still, the involvement of ticketmaster will scare off a lot of potential customers - that company is more toxic than saying "Brought to you by Comcast and Bank of America".
Taylor swift used ticketmaster and I'd say her eras tour was quite successful despite it. So I wouldn't blame that as the factor for the Sphere's success or failure even if I dislike the choice.
If Taylor Swift had required fans to register in person at a DMV in a series of three different appointments two weeks apart she still would have sold out - when the demand is that high it becomes a bad data point for comparison.
As someone who doesn't follow Taylor Swift at all, the two stories that filtered through to me were
* Lots of people were pissed at Ticketmaster
* The tour was a big success
It seems like it was a success despite ticketmaster.
You can't book an event of any decent size in the USA without it being a required Ticketmaster venue, so unfortunately if you want to see any reasonably popular artist or a show at a big venue they are your only option.
I'm from (and live in) Norway. Ticketmaster is used for a lot of shows here too, especially the larger venues.
While I wouldn't call them the best thing since sliced bread, overall my experience over the years is that they take my money and give me my tickets.
Today I bought some tickets. I vent to the venue, saw there was a show, clicked on Buy tickets, took me to Ticketmaster, logged on, found ticket, paid via local payment provider[1] (verified on phone, super simple), and I got my tickets on email. All was just a few clicks and over in a couple of minutes.
This is my typical experience. Is US Ticketmaster particularly worse, or am I living in an alternate reality?
Stupid invented fees are what flipped the "never again" switch for me. Every step of the buying process, there'd be a new fee tacked on. You'd get things like "order processing fee, $20, facility fee, $10, service fee, $23, digital copies fee, $10, fee to see what all the fees add up to, $20".
You'd end up spending $120 on a pair of tickets, and $500 on invented fees that any sane person would have a very difficult time justifying.
I just bought a couple of tickets to a small venue, tickets were $26 each (NOK is weak these days) including a fee of $2.25 each, so grand total $52 of which $4.50 total in fees. Checking my card, this is indeed what my card was charged, so no additional hidden fees.
I bought some tickets earlier this year for a mid-sized venue, $44 per ticket including $3.50 in fees each.
I did not select the optional "services" like physical ticket (just eTicket which is e-mail with PDF) or the ticket insurance.
Checking my ticket history (~10 concerts through Ticketmaster last couple of years) it's always been around this 10% in fees. It's comparable to the other ticket vendors other venues use that I've bought from like TicketCo and Tikkio.
edit: I checked Bryan Adams, he's coming to a larger venue next year which also uses Ticketmaster. Only tickets left were the least expensive ones (standing) at $75 per ticket, including a $5 fee.
edit2: Besides Ticketmaster not owning venues as mentioned by sibling reply, I guess a big factor is that, AFAIK, any non-optional fees must be included in the "sticker price" here in Norway. So they can't tack those on later.
I think it's likely that Ticketmaster operates differently in Norway. What you describe sounds reasonable, but what Ticketmaster does in the United States is simply ridiculous.
Ticketmaster is a vertical monopoly in the US. They control all major venues in the country, all ticketing, and resale of that ticjeting. They are awful. I assume they have yet to achieve total market dominance in norway.
I despise giving an endorsement to anything Dolan is associated with and can profit from as he is an awful and genuinely petty human, but the Sphere is a technology worth seeing.
I wasn't super impressed with the sphere's screen when I went in there with the thing turned off and saw the very steep stairs to the seats. It initially looked like a bigger movie screen.
But once it's on, with the right shot, it completely envelops your field of view and is quite mesmerizing. I'd love to see some action movies specifically shot for that screen. The way that it wraps around you and can potentially show you a full field of view in front of you and to the sides would be quite exciting for a chase or combat sequence for a movie.
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 stakeholders? I don’t understand that.
I’m a fan of organizations becoming disconnect and unbeholden to public opinion. Some people try to become judgement proof - uncollectable funds after losing a civil suit - I’m a fan of cancel proof. Companies that dont have to change anything based on a stakeholder’s behavior.
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 behavior?
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.
Companies already are cancel-proof, unless they're dumb enough to alienate their biggest customers. Then they cancel themselves.
The "toxic personality" stuff really does need to die though. Elon Musk is not invited to my birthday party, but I can respect what his companies have done. These parasocial vendettas are on par with cult disfellowshipping behavior. Unless the product is an asshole too, who gives a shit?
Linus, the asshole, brought Linux to fruition. Gentle parenting and oversensitivity only brings us more assholes.
> The New York Post reported Tuesday that Ranji suddenly quit after a bout of yelling and screaming from CEO James Dolan.
Been there done that and you don’t have to put up with abusive behavior like this in 2023. Good on him for leaving. Didn’t know Dolan had spread his dysfunction and entitled rich boy show to the desert also.
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, you'll be printing money...)
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.
Depends on the concert goer, really. At this particular time in my life, I'm not really interested in the spectacle so much as the love of the music, so the "it's a party" doesn't have the same appeal for me.
I'd rather see someone like Colin Hay play an acoustic set in a small venue where I can sit and have a whiskey than a big stadium thingy from a band that I like but don't love. The Cure have the full package, for me: The spectacle, the amazing sound live, and their music really resonates with me in a way that U2 doesn't.
I did see U2 on the Joshua Tree anniversary tour - and it was a great spectacle. My wife, who loves them, was over the moon. I was moderately entertained. Would've been a huge waste of money if I'd gone solo, but it was worth it because she loved it.
And one more add: Barenaked Ladies are the best value for my dollar when I do want the "it's a party" vibe. Not so much spectacle, but damn are their live shows fun. Some of their music really resonates with me but their live show prowess kicks it up several notches.
I saw the U2 show from the front rail at the Sphere. It was the single best concert I've ever been to of the uncountable shows I have seen. I don't love U2, either. The sphere is nearly magical to experience.
I visited Vegas for the first time this year and I enjoyed it way more than I thought I would.
I was surprised to learn that, despite its reputation as a party city, it isn't technically legal to consume cannabis on the Strip. I guess it's in the interests of MGM and Caesars to keep the alcohol flowing, and all of the profit that comes from that.
While all that is true, I try to avoid breaking the law when visiting foreign countries. I wouldn't want to make future travel unnecessarily complicated.
If you're not a US citizen, abstaining sounds wise.
> while laws governing marijuana in individual U.S. states and other
nations may change, CBP will continue to enforce U.S. Federal Law, which prohibits the possession of marijuana ...
> Aliens must overcome all grounds of inadmissibility, including admissions of past violations of controlled substance law. Possession and/or admission to the use of marijuana by an alien may result in the refusal of admission.
> I visited Vegas for the first time this year and I enjoyed it way more than I thought I would.
I always felt this would be a great tagline for the Las Vegas tourism commission. Use it to advertise in places that people that maybe wouldn't think of going to Las Vegas tend to be. I felt the same way the first time I went. The place is just amazing and unique.
Decades back in downtown Houston there was an art display of very large screens (plasma I think) in an array angled over a reflecting pool. It played some weird psychedelic imagery in a loop. Maybe Tranquility Park, I forget. Back then, downtown was desolate after 6pm so I cut through it at dusk for some scenery.
There was a homeless guy wearing a Santa cap standing across the pool from the screens. It was December. Leaning to one side and a bottle in hand. I joined him and after awhile he asked "what does it mean?"
I said I didn't know but he should let us know when he found out. Gave him some money.
When I think of this sphere, we should put a nuclear plant and AGI in it and it can play some part in a dystopian future where it's the final altar of the technostellasphere.
> Ranji’s exit was “not a result of any disagreement with the company’s independent auditors or any member of management on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure or internal controls,”
From someone who doesn’t have to live there and pay for it, the Sphere felt like something new to the species. Not just as an incredible internal experience, but just this omnipresent goofy thing.
Imagine waking up in your city and looking out the window simultaneously with thousands of others to see what mood your local sphere is in about this darn weather. It feels like it would be very connecting.
At the same time I appreciate it’s hard to opt out, is rather imposing, and will eventually just show ads.
Meta: Someone please correct me. The outside of the Sphere is pretty damned awesome, with its interactive elements and novelty. I'd visit Vegas just to watch it, not that they'd make any money off me for that.
The inside looks like an IMAX theater combined with a few planetarium features (lazors?). And, well, I have a really nice IMAX theater only an hour away from me. Why would I pay a premium to see the one in Vegas?
EDIT: Thank you, everyone, for correcting me! Good to know.
The inside of The Sphere is so much more impressive than the outside. The resolution/crispness of the “screen” isn’t talked about but it is a unique experience, unlike any venue or film I have ever been to. I went to U2 a few weeks ago and want to go again. The IMAX comparison is not even close, they are calling it 18k and if you can imagine an IMAX screen wrapping all the way over your head you are on the way. I have heard the U2 show is more impressive than the film, but I haven’t seen the film yet.
> 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 in the 1970s.
The Sphere probably still blows it out of the water specs wise, but more people than you'd think are familiar with the "surrounded by the image" phenomenon.
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.
The dome-style IMAX are actually apparently quite rare, the "normal" IMAX is just a really big (about three stories tall) screen, that is slightly curved usually.
I believe Six Flags over Georgia had an actual IMAX dome that I remember as a kid - a projector experience of short films such as flying airplanes, racing cars and such.
Obviously it is digital and Omnimax (not IMAX) is analog but how does the Sphere compare to Omnimax? Is it an even bigger field of view?
The most recent time I went to an Omnimax was to see Oppenheimer, but it actually wasn't that great since Oppenheimer was filmed in IMAX versus Omnimax.. the end result was a gigantic wrap around movie that had spherical distortion and made your neck hurt from turning it to see everything.
So the IMAX company renamed "Omnimax" to "IMAX dome" in about the year 2000, but some of the theatres kept the old name.
Watching an analog flat screen IMAX movie on a dome seems like a horrible mess, but if you digitized it, pre-corrected the distortion and re-printed it to use not-all of the dome screen I guess it could work. Maybe you could achieve similar in the analogue domain with a special arrangement of lenses.
I expect you could take an IMAX dome film, digitize it and translate it to the Sphere quite easily.
I looked it up as 16k doesn’t sound that much when my 43 inch is 4K. However the sphere seems to impress universally, so it’s clearly not just the pixel count.
I think you’re missing the shear size of the thing (much larger than any IMAX—this is an 18,000 person venue vs ~500 for the largest IMAX), clarity of the interior dome (yes, it’s like IMAX), brightness of the interior dome (it’s a super bright LED screen and provides all lighting in the venue—not projection), and audio (hearing is believing—the “beam forming” tech has the presence of an arena show without the ear fatigue and can also feel intimate almost like an acoustic cafe show).
The screen to some extent will be dependent on content produced for it (some very cool optical illusions are possible with a spherical screen), but I hope the audio tech will make its way into most large music venues over the next few decades—it’s just that good.
And it's an 18,00 seat venue that only uses half the arena for seating. Picture taking a typical NBA arena and putting everyone on one side of the court without any additional crowding, they didn't shrink the seats down to 12 inches wide or anything.
The Sphere has generated a lot of interest beyond people who are already visiting Vegas anyway, at least so far - for example, a colleague of mine in London visited Vegas last month just to go to the U2 show.
> Ranji suddenly quit after a bout of yelling and screaming from CEO James Dolan.
seems just like boundary setting to me
thats becoming popular and this is clearly a person that has the privilege of choice, so there is zero reason to put up with that for some shares 4 years from now
That's how it is wildly profitable: treat the size as a challenge, and the SmokingBros will take that challenge and hotbox the entire place in some glorious out of control 4/20 party, to the Sphere's profit.
> Ranji’s exit was “not a result of any disagreement with the company’s independent auditors or any member of management on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure or internal controls,” the company said in the filing.
Should one be worried if this needs to be highlighted in the statement?
The only minor difference is about 80 years of economic activity; and a few super secret military projects, including one that helped launch the atomic age.
Also the two cities both have modern engineering marvels in their own right. Just one had a really tall building that served as a symbol of power, but with no real purpose. The other has a massive dam that took amazing diplomacy and bureaucracy to convince 7 states and Mexico to agree to tame a wild and destructive river; in exchange for generating power, and using the revenue to fund itself.
It's bad but it's not that bad. Vegas is cool if your definition of cool matches what a 50 years old recently divorced person with too much money/time and not enough hobbies finds cool.
Dubai is cool if your definition of cool is "money" (and you're fairly tolerant with slave labor and human right violation)
