

Adobe acquires Typekit - jcsalterego
http://blog.typekit.com/2011/10/03/adobe-acquires-typekit/

======
flixic
I have some conflicted feelings.

On one hand, I'm happy for Typekit team, if everything turns out the way they
hope. Possible integration with Photoshop / DreamWeaver could help bring
better fonts to the web, help them grow, invite more type foundries, and so
on.

On the other hand, Adobe quite often ruin things they acquire, and that would
be just __terrible __, because Typekit was by far the best service for web
fonts. Google fonts are quite crappy, FontDeck doesn't have the best
foundries, and Fonts.com is expensive, and their fonts are less optimized for
the web.

So here's to the bright future of Typekit, in which the service remains great
and inexpensive.

~~~
markbao
Fonts.com has an excellent webfonts offering which includes name-brand fonts
like Frutiger, Helvetica Neue, Avenir, and others.

~~~
flixic
Yes, but they are more than 4 times as expensive, and most of their fonts are
not optimized for the web (unlike Typekit's).

------
markbao
I liked Typekit. I hope Adobe won't run it into the ground, like the rest of
the companies they've acquired.

~~~
davidedicillo
I agree. And hopefully won't require some ugly software in order to use it.

~~~
reustle
Don't worry, it will seamlessly work. They're just going to push out a change
via the hosted JS that injects flash elements to display the fonts.

~~~
wgx
And _requires_ the install of Adobe AIR.

------
krosaen
From the email I just got (I'm a paying customer):

""" If you’re one of our customers, this announcement means things will only
get better. Typekit will remain a standalone product, as well as become a
vital part of Adobe’s Creative Cloud. Our team will stay together, and we’re
excited to start working on even easier ways to integrate web fonts into your
workflow. """

They're saying all the right things: standalone product, team staying
together, etc, sure hope so.

~~~
huhtenberg
> _even easier ways to integrate_

Good, a pure CSS then. Like all other font services these days.

------
czottmann
I, for one, am looking forward to Adobe Air-powered Typekit Installation
packages containing native OSX installers that spit out HTML snippets.

------
redler
From a historical perspective, this certainly feels like a logical, organic
acquisition for both Typekit and Adobe. But it's disappointing that they
didn't exit into the arms of Google. Google Web Fonts could have used the help
and passion. They apparently danced, but unfortunately didn't leave the ball
together:

[http://code.google.com/apis/webfonts/docs/webfont_loader.htm...](http://code.google.com/apis/webfonts/docs/webfont_loader.html)

<http://blog.typekit.com/2010/05/19/typekit-and-google/>

It's unlikely this will result in the kind of innovation or even disruption
that a Google/Typekit union could have provided.

Edit: Removed unnecessarily negative language.

------
petercooper
If you're in the UK (or, heck, outside of the US), start saving up for when
the standard Adobe currency conversion rates of $1 = £2 come into action ;-)

------
hsmyers
Price will increase, service will decrease. I'm happy for those at Typekit who
cashed out, too bad for the users...

------
vilius
It's interesting to see Typekit guys cashing out. I bet the price was pretty
solid. I remember, when I first tried their service in 2009, the first
impression was _wow, it works!_. Not only in technological aspect. It felt
that the Startup worked. The timing and niche instantly became to be
"naturally clear". Two years passed and we see here a nice cash out.
Meanwhile: let's step up and do something _wow, it works_. Stripe has started
doing it in 2011. And probably many more.

------
mtgentry
I love Typekit. I think Adobe knows better than to mess with the product
itself. However the pricing model is pretty low by Adobe standards. I hope
that doesn't change.

------
peterjmag
Typekit is an excellent service for the price, but the main reason I've
remained a committed customer and evangelist is their constant drive to
improve. I love that they've worked so hard to improve font rendering on
Windows (which I'm sure is a huge pain in the ass) and that they encourage
foundries to hint their fonts (which improves rendering for everyone). I hope
that this acquisition won't hinder that kind of initiative.

------
athst
Like everyone else, I'm happy for the founders. But as a Typekit customer, I
was pretty disappointed to see their email announcement about this today.

They were doing well and were on to something big - why did they have to sell
now? I love their product, but they still have such a long way to go and so
much they could improve on. It just seems so early and unnecessary.

------
dasil003
Maybe if the chorus rises loud enough, Adobe management will get a clue and
not ruin Typekit.

------
williamle8300
TypeKit served a purpose, but cross-browser support for @font-face has largely
obsoleted them.

Latest versions of Safari and Firefox and Google Chrome support @font-face and
Opera is planning to support it soon.

~~~
mnml_
I have tried to use @font-face on a large website where all the users don't
have up to date. All was just getting emails about old versions of safari
crashing, ipads crashing chrome crashing etc. I agree with you TypeKit wont be
useful forever but for now it's the best solution I have found.

~~~
charlieorford
YMMV but have you tried using this approach:

[http://www.fontspring.com/blog/further-hardening-of-the-
bull...](http://www.fontspring.com/blog/further-hardening-of-the-bulletproof-
syntax)

We use the above with good results (supports IE6-9, FF, Safari, Android, iOS,
Chrome and Opera).

www.airbus.com (a large site) also uses this technique (or at least they did
when I last looked).

------
citricsquid
Just got the $49.99/year plan, I've been considering it and I figure if Adobe
are going to raise prices they'll hopefully let older customers stick to their
original pricing... so maybe I got a good deal.

------
reustle
Oh no.

~~~
jfb
This was my reaction, and the reaction of three people who walked past my desk
and saw the announcement. Good for the Typekit guys, and thanks for the
service, but my faith in Adobe not balling things up is shaky.

------
sambeau
Now that Adobe has bought Typekit I anticipate an HTML5 version of Adobe
Bridge® bundled with Adobe® Typekit® Master Collection® 6.0…

------
Silhouette
Typekit is a funny concept to me. While I can respect and admire their ability
to build a successful company, I think the blog post shows just how rose-
tinted are the spectacles worn by these font services:

    
    
        Second, we could innovate on the business side as well.
        We could sell fonts as a service, and use a subscription
        model to eliminate Byzantine licensing and usage issues.
    

I wonder how much money they would have made if they'd sold fonts with a
simple, one-term commercial licence fee, just like stock photography, music,
icons, etc.

I know there's no way I could ever use their services with any of the clients
I've had, because you simply can't factor in an ongoing cost that is
unrestricted and controlled by a third party when giving a fixed price quote
for most clients. However, I've spent significant amounts of my own and
various companies' money to buy good quality fonts for other uses, and would
surely have done so for web fonts as well if anyone was willing to take my
money on that basis.

    
    
        Few sites used web fonts when we got started;
        today, new sites seldom launch without them.
        Typekit now serves nearly three billion fonts
        per month on over one million different sites,
        including some of the most recognized brands
        on the web.
    

Well, good for them, but since Netcraft reckon there are currently over 400
million Web sites and there are only a handful of font services, that suggests
to me that perhaps 1% of the Web is actually using these services.

    
    
        From the start, our vision has been to make
        the web more beautiful, readable, and fast.
    

Unfortunately, what they've actually done is cause millions of pages to look
terrible, indeed sometimes outright illegible, because most of their screen
fonts simply aren't as good at body text sizes as the tried and tested
Georgia, Verdana, etc. And there is no way that downloading a font from a
third party service, even one with a great CDN, is faster than using a native
one that's already installed locally.

Herein lies the fundamental problem with the whole web-font-as-service
concept: at body sizes, there is rarely enough difference at typical screen
resolutions to justify a change from the old favourites (and such changes are
usually ill-advised anyway), while for one-off uses like headings and pull
quotes where distinctive fonts can make a worthwhile impact, the web design
community was managing just fine already.

As higher resolution screens become the norm, perhaps this will change, just
as tiny pixel-drawn icons are giving way to scalable vector-based artwork (but
it really shows on smaller or lower-resolution screens where you do still want
a 16x16 or 32x32 icon and the vectors haven't been carefully crafted to fit
pixel-perfect at that kind of scale). Even then, it's hard to see how you can
justify paying a substantial amount of cash every month to use fonts on web
sites, when no other on-line stock resources work that way and fonts for other
uses don't work that way either.

Still, I wish them well, if only for the benefit of those users who can fit in
with their business model and do find it worthwhile. I don't share the
pessimism of some here about the Adobe takeover, because one of the few things
Adobe has pretty much always done well both technically and in terms of
management/legal stuff is fonts.

~~~
ddagradi
[Disclaimer: My business licenses fonts via Typekit]

Blaming Typekit for bad design is an interesting choice. Might as well blame
browsers for giving designers access to millions of terrible color choices via
CSS while you're at it. Blame bad designers for not knowing how to use fonts.

The community was _not_ doing a good job with custom fonts for headings, pull
quotes, etc. @font-face works pretty well, but foundries clearly weren't
willing to sell licenses for it the same way they do for print/commercial use.
It's not a difficult thing to explain to clients - it's a recurring fee just
like hosting, SSL certificates, and domain registration. It handles all cross-
browser issues, saves bandwidth, and gives you, the designer, easy access to a
rather large library of fonts at no cost to you. Clients that can't afford the
$2-8/month probably can't afford good design to begin with.

If web fonts are too slow for you in all circumstances, how is Typekit any
worse than a license from a foundry? Native fonts are great, and should be
used extensively, but they really limit your options.

~~~
jfb
Native fonts are only great if you can guarantee that your viewers have them
installed. Otherwise, you're left with a wretched subset of garbage.

~~~
ddagradi
No argument there. You can always count on Helvetica, Arial, Georgia and
Verdana. Reliable old workhorses. And boring beyond belief.

