
Why are tech companies making custom typefaces? - richtr
https://www.arun.is/blog/custom-typefaces/
======
charliecurran
This is one of those times where as a working creative that frequently reads
Hacker News I straight up face palm.

I have to imagine a lot of these commenters would say the same in regards to
any sort of subjective artistic choice that isn't purely optimized for
efficiency.

I would like to leave you with a quote by Briano Eno from a really good
lecture he gave several years ago that I hope can provide a jumping off point
for alternate ways to think about style, and why I think y'all are asking the
wrong questions.

"So the first question is, why is any of that important? Why do we do it? And
notice it’s not only us relatively wealthy people, in terms of global wealth,
who are doing it - it’s everybody that we know of. Every human group we know
of is spending a lot of their time – in fact almost all of their surplus time
and energy – is spent in the act of stylising things and enjoying other
people’s stylisations of things. So my question is, what is it for? In fact,
my friend Danny Hillus, who’s a scientist, was asked by a well-known science
website, along with about 300 other scientists, he was asked what is the most
interesting scientific question at the moment? A lot of the other people
replied with things about the cosmological constant and Ryman’s Hypothesis and
all these very complicated things. And his question was very simple: he said
why do we like music? And if you start thinking about that, that is really one
of the most mysterious things you can imagine. Why do we even have an interest
in music? Why do we have preferences? Why do we like this song better than
that one? Why do we like this Beethoven sonata better than that Beethoven
sonata? Why do we like this performance of that same sonata better than that
other performance? We had very fine distinctions about things that we prefer,
aesthetic things. And, yet, none of it seems to have much to do with
functionalism, with staying alive and certainly not with industries I would
say." \- Brian Eno

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/speeches/2015/bbc-music-
jo...](https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/speeches/2015/bbc-music-john-peel-
lecture)

~~~
shaan7
Actually the content of the article makes this comment slightly unwarranted
(unless I'm misreading the tone). The author has described, quite well, on how
typography isn't about just subjective artistic choice but largely its
functional implications. Oh and there is a reason why a lot of engineering
folks have critical opinions about this. Some of us have worked with designers
in the past that simply do not take the effort to explain _why_ a certain
design choice was made (even though they put a painful amount of thought into
the process). At my office, it took our engineering and design team a lot of
time to finally figure out what was missing. Now our discussions have
designers going into details of choices which makes it so clear that most of
them aren't subjective at all (some are, and that is fine).

~~~
crispyambulance
I think designers have the very challenging job of "threading the needle"
between business considerations and aesthetics. Both can be critical depending
on the mission.

Unfortunately, "subjective" is often used as a dirty word especially around
here where some folks even claim to prefer html stripped of all styling. As
you pointed out, there is a lot of thought and sweat that goes into the
creation of a typeface. The artistic aspects deserve respect and attention not
just from the practitioners but also from their users.

I think it's actually a good thing that there's a proliferation of typefaces.
If a large company, wanting to avoid millions of dollars in fees to license a
typeface, can pay a designer to create a new one that's a good thing. Even if
the typeface is created for reasons of brand vanity, it puts someone to work
and helps to further the development of typography in general.

~~~
falcolas
> The artistic aspects deserve respect and attention not just from the
> practitioners but also from their users.

As a developer and sysadmin: Let me know how that works for you. End users
will rarely if ever recognize your contributions; will only really notice your
contribution when it doesn't work.

Sorry.

~~~
H1Supreme
I worked in graphic design before I made my way into programming full time. My
first job was building desktop apps with a team of programmers with very
little design sensibilities. As such, there was lots of plain grey, haphazard
interfaces. While they functioned fine, they left nearly everything to be
desired aesthetically.

I received immediate, positive feedback on my initial contributions. Applying
basic design to otherwise "undesigned" interfaces, made a big difference to
our users.

While that may be an extreme example, it does highlight the need for design.
Whether or not someone can "respect" it, as the OP suggests, is debatable.
But, the effectiveness of something designed well, isn't.

~~~
lobotryas
The biggest problem is that after this initial, high value work is done the
designers are still on the payroll and they still need to demonstrate their
value/be doing something. That’s how you get un-necessary UI redesigns and,
arguably, custom typefaces.

IMHO, designers just don’t know when to stop.

~~~
dceddia
I think the same could be said of developers. Or, maybe in both cases, it's
the companies that don't know when to stop.

As a developer, and maybe more relevant here, a _user_ of software, it's kind
of surprising how development efforts often continue well past the point of
shipping something useful. Now, I'm not arguing that this applies to every
software product, or that people should stop at the bare minimum like "welp,
we shipped v1, let's pack it up everyone."

But this underlying belief that _things must be continually improved_ is very
pervasive in software and even moreso in open source. ("Last commit was 6
months ago? This project is obviously dead!")

I don't know that anything can or should be done to "fix" this, but it's an
interesting observation. Think about it next time there's an "upgrade" that
breaks something or changes a workflow you liked. Why did that happen?

~~~
lobotryas
The difference is that developers can go on to build new features or even new
products for the same company. Can they end up making things worse? Yes, but
in such case I personally would blame short-sighted Product Managers chasing
the new shiny.

Conversely, designers can not in isolation build a new product and thus are
stuck (again, in my opinion) reinventing the wheel for what exists.

And yes, I agree with you that there is a lot of change for its own sake and I
wish it would stop regardless of the source. See the recent UI overhaul of
gmail. It was enough to force me to use their basic HTML UI and now I’m
looking for an alternative all together.

------
Rotten194
I don't think most tech companies actually want a completely custom, radically
new typeface. They want a designer to trace Helvetica so they don't have to
pay licensing fees.

~~~
michaelt
The article contains an image [1] showing several tech-company-funded fonts
side-by-side.

The fonts have some differences, but I'd have to agree with you the changes
are so subtle it's hard to believe they resulted from an attempt to make a
_radically_ new typeface.

[1] [https://www.arun.is/blog/custom-
typefaces/unique_typefaces_m...](https://www.arun.is/blog/custom-
typefaces/unique_typefaces_mobile.jpg)

~~~
mattferderer
I'm curious if there are any lawsuits based on basically tracing & duplicating
fonts? Does adding the slightest accent to the letter "a" allow you to trace
the other 99%.

Also many of these look like they just adjusted the weight ever so slightly.
With variable fonts, I'm curious how this come into play when considering
copyrights.

~~~
dmerfield
Per Ch 37, Sec. 202.1(e) of the Code of Federal Regulations, typefaces cannot
be copyrighted in the United States:

[https://www.bitlaw.com/source/37cfr/202_1.html](https://www.bitlaw.com/source/37cfr/202_1.html)

Note that although the design of the typeface is not copyrightable, the
computer programs which generate typefaces (‘fonts’) contain elements which
are:

[https://www.copyright.gov/history/mls/ML-443.pdf](https://www.copyright.gov/history/mls/ML-443.pdf)

~~~
mark-r
While they may not be copyrightable, you can get a design patent:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protecti...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protection_of_typefaces#Design_patents).
I've read that Adobe and Microsoft have both protected some fonts this way.

------
Vanderson
_" The idea that typefaces (rather than fonts, which are computer software)
cannot be copyrighted in the United States is black letter law. 37 C.F.R. §
202.1(e). Under U.S. law, typefaces and their letter forms or glyphs are
considered utilitarian objects whose public utility outweighs any private
interest in protecting their creative elements."_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protecti...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protection_of_typefaces#United_States)

There is an interesting history of font copying going back to the beginning of
the USA. Where the US printers wanted to use European fonts (typefaces?), but
didn't want to be hampered by their copyright laws. So there was no copyright
protections of fonts in the US.

IANAL but Adobe lost some court case on this recently where they tried to
accuse someone of "stealing/copying" a font. But since you can't copyright the
alphabet, you can only copyright the font's actual data.

In theory you could trace any font you want in a font design program, and it
is now legally yours.

Which makes sense if you are a business that uses fonts (ie a software
company) as a primary part of your product instead of a permanent fee to a
font provider.

------
ardy42
> Why are tech companies making custom typefaces?

Because they hate me. I disable font smoothing on my machines. Custom
typefaces usually have poor hinting, which means they look _terrible_ without
smoothing (e.g. inconstant line thickness and inconsistent spacing).

The fonts that ship with Windows and Mac OS are wonderfully hinted, and appear
crisp and clean without font smoothing. I curse the day web fonts were
invented and gave the industry bad excuses not to use them.

Google is the _absolute worst_ here. They use custom fonts heavily now, and
somehow they're not even blockable with the Font Blocker extension
([https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/font-
blocker/knpga...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/font-
blocker/knpgaobajhnhgkhhoopjepghknapnikl)).

~~~
ramraj07
Do you still use a 1024 x 768 monitor or what?

~~~
ardy42
> Do you still use a 1024 x 768 monitor or what?

No, I have some nice, large 16:10 monitors.

However, that brings up a good point: if you're designing your stuff to only
look good on a MacBook's retina display, you're doing it wrong.

~~~
rleigh
You need to cater for both nowadays, I think.

I recently upgraded from a 26" 16:10 1920×1200 display to a similarly-sized
16:9 4K display. I ran them side-by-side for a few days to compare. The
difference in text quality was night and day. After using the 4K for a week
the quality of the old display looked terrible: blurry and unreadable. Like
going back to 800×600! I sold it; I saw no value in it as a secondary display.
If I do ever need a second, it will be another 4K. Or 8K when it's available
and affordable. If you're developing, writing or reading all day long, the
improved legibility makes such a difference for ease of reading, eyestrain and
headaches that it makes little sense to retain the old.

We clearly need to support low DPI displays for some time to come; the
installed base is huge. However, high DPI displays are the future, and it's
going to be increasingly a requirement that they are also properly catered
for.

I'm not a particularly big fan of the trend by Microsoft (for example) to use
very thin fonts with Windows 10. Just because you can to show off the
technology, doesn't mean you should. I'd prefer bolder, more easily legible
text even with a hi-DPI display, even if the thin ones are fashionable for
some reason.

~~~
mark-r
I only wish 4K was offered in 16:10, or just that 16:10 was more popular in
general. I'll be hanging on to my 1920x1200 until it dies.

~~~
rleigh
Yes, it is annoying. However, it's not as bad as I thought it might be. Since
the display is quite big in size, I generally use one window on each half of
the display and I don't feel I'm really missing out on vertical space too
much. The DPI is sufficiently high that I don't find the horizontal size too
small either, which was certainly the case with half of a 1920×1200 display
previously.

On the other hand, it's sufficiently big that I don't generally need such a
large space. I could have gone with a physically smaller 4K display with a
higher DPI and still been very happy.

~~~
eiaoa
My main problem with 16:9 is how obscenely long they are. I use my monitors to
do work, not watch movies, so I have a lot more need for vertical real-estate.

Tilting them on their side doesn't help, because they're far too narrow that
way.

~~~
ramraj07
Boy do I want to know what you feel about them ultrawide monitors

~~~
eiaoa
They are harbingers of the computing apocalypse and have shown that progress
is a lie. By 2050 we'll be forced to use monitors with the aspect ratio of
swords, because the manufactures are going to need to find another ratio to
senselessly maximize after they've achieved peak thinness.

------
ken
You can tell how old a car is by the extra words on the back under the name.
"Fuel injected"? 1980's or 1990's. "Hybrid"? 2000's or 2010's.

Similarly, you can tell the era of computer software by what strange thing
they decide they need to customize. We're in the era of "slight variants of
Helvetica". (Nobody's asking for a Zapfino clone, strangely.) For whatever
reason, fonts and logotypes are the axis on which everybody seems to need to
compete today. And gratuitous 2D animation.

We already went through the "custom sound" phase, and it (mostly) went out of
style, thankfully. Splash screens are also on the way out, since we no longer
need a way to hide long loading times.

I wonder what's next. Gratuitous 3D animation? Custom smells? Plaids?

To be clear, I have no problem with nice fonts on my computer, but I think
it's funny that everyone is so focused on showing off their creativity on this
one very specific axis. You really can't think of any other possible ways to
have functional style?

~~~
freehunter
Personally I think the problem is the over-use of analytics in page design. No
one can compete on page design anymore because it doesn't convert well with
focus groups or in A/B testing, so every page looks like a Bootstrap template.
So they try to find SOMETHING that won't put up lower conversion numbers yet
is slightly different so they can say their page is unique.

~~~
ken
Good point. It's probably a design focus of companies _because_ it's named,
and self-contained. You can put "Font" on a schedule, and a budget, and an A/B
test. Your programmers can't really complain that it makes any other task more
complex. It's the holy grail of design: some pixie dust you can sprinkle on at
the end, which impacts nothing but makes everything prettier.

If, say, physics-engine-based layouts became popular for general user
interfaces, it would take over the entire development of the product. It would
affect every part of the budget and schedule and architecture. You couldn't
feasibly A/B test it.

------
johneth
It's not just tech companies. The BBC has commissioned a typeface[1] for their
massively varied output, to cut down on licensing costs.

[1] [https://www.bbc.co.uk/gel/articles/introducing-bbc-
reith](https://www.bbc.co.uk/gel/articles/introducing-bbc-reith)

~~~
baxtr
Aren't the fonts Google provides free of charge? At least for web-design?

~~~
johneth
They use it in multiple languages (World Service), mediums (TV, online,
print), and use-cases (serious for news, legible for preschoolers learning to
read, edgy for comedy trailers, etc.), for which the web fonts may be too
limited or restrictive in number and variation of styles or characters.

It's also an opportunity to brand something as uniquely theirs, unlike a
Google web font that anybody can use.

~~~
niklasrde
Just to note, that print here refers mostly to advertising and corporate
brochures.

We do have magazines and merchandise for some franchises, but as far as I
know, those were secondary when it came to BBC Reith/Reith Sans. TV & Online
are big, and especially when it comes to legibility across resolutions and
encoding systems (PAL/NTSC/SD/Pixel Ratios/HD/4K/Mobile/High-DPI..)

------
stencil25
I work as a developer at a growing startup, who creates a widget which is
inserted into a vendor webpage, much like Intercom's chat bubble.

We spent a lot of time ensuring our build came in as small as possible, in
order to reduce server costs and page load times, for millions of potential
users.

Suddenly, the creative side of the business wanted to add our own font to the
application. The bespoke font files (woff2&1, thanks lord) we were given were
almost 5x the size of the initial build package.

All the worth of optimisation, right?

~~~
jackpeterfletch
not to mention that its hard to stop custom fonts 'popping in'

------
bryanrasmussen
>I can’t help but feel that some of these companies wanted a

>custom typeface simply because that’s what everyone else is

>doing. This cargo cult mentality that is so prevalent in

>design is at best wasteful and at worst illegal.

Illegal?!? I'm going to need to see some work on this part. I couldn't find
anything in the article that seemed to directly support the assertion.

on edit: formatting

~~~
JustSomeNobody
Yeah, the author needs to either remove that or clarify that point. That being
said, I _think_ the author means that all of these new type faces are very
similar and so they may be infringing. Or that the companies want a familiar
type face but don't want to pay for it, so they commission a look-a-like. But,
that's just a very large grasp on my part from reading the article.

~~~
Vanderson
He may be bringing up the issue that it's perfectly legal to copy another font
visually as long as you don't copy the font's data. (maybe something the
author doesn't understand?)

~~~
gowld
How is that true? Can I copy a book or a painting visually as long as I don't
copy its "data"?

~~~
true_religion
No, but typefaces are specifically excluded from copyright. An alphabet is
considered to be utilitarian, not art.

------
rangibaby
Font licensing is rent-seeking bullshit on the level of "Mickey Mouse"
copyright extensions and I'm surprised the big foundries have managed to
convince everyone that they need to pay for typefaces, which are explicitly
copyright-free in every major jurisdiction.

~~~
bovermyer
Just out of curiosity, how would you suggest that foundries make money?

~~~
asaph
I believe GP is implying that they don't deserve to make money from a
copyright-free asset.

------
bshimmin
_Another reason is support for multiple languages. Many companies in western
countries may start by using a typeface that only covers Latin script._

I was doing some work with Nokia around the time they released Nokia Pure, and
I can certainly say that multiple language support was, at least for us, one
of the primary drivers for using it, and it made our lives a lot easier at the
time.

~~~
harimau777
It would be interesting to see a resource that paired up equivalent fonts in
different scripts. It could take into account form ("This Arabic font uses
similar shapes to Helvetica"), function ("This is the Chinese 'default' front
similar to Times New Roman"), and what the font implies ("This font is used as
a 'futuristic' font in Japanese similar to Eurostyle or Bank Gothic in Latin
script").

------
Odenwaelder
I've been to a talk about the new Lufthansa CI in Frankfurt a few weeks ago
and asked this very question — why move away from Helvetica? The answer was,
first, Helvetica's readability on screen is apparently not very good, and
second, Lufthansa had to pay massive licensing fees in order to use Helvetica.

------
tru3_power
Typography is awesome and I like how this article conveys the functional
aspect of it. Does anyone know of any good readings about typefaces
(specifically about ratios that letters should adhere to?)

~~~
redler
Try "Stop Stealing Sheep" [1] or "The Elements of Typographic Style" [2]

[1]
[https://www.amazon.com/dp/0201703394](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0201703394)

[2]
[https://www.amazon.com/dp/0881792128](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0881792128)

~~~
Pulcinella
I will say that “The Elements of Typographic Style” is still the standard and
probably one of the most ‘Textbook’ typography books, it’s still primarily
concerned with book typography. It does go into computers and how they have
affected typography, but still largely in terms of book layout engines and
such. Bringhurst doesn’t even get into other forms of print typography like
posters, let alone apps and websites.

------
paulmckeever
The article suggests that tech companies believe brand is important, and
therefore invest in building custom typefaces to save on licensing fees.

That doesn't really hold up. The cost of developing a custom typeface can
easily run from hundreds of thousands into millions of dollars.

It can take a huge amount of time and energy from within the company to
commission and direct a large creative project.

Typeface licensing costs are a very small proportion of what most companies
will spend on brand marketing.

And saving money on a small line-item isn't exactly a recipe for getting
promoted.

Announcing that your shiny new typeface will save the company lots of money
is, more likely, a post-purchase rationalisation that helps make everyone feel
good about the investment.

If the driver was primarily to reduce licensing costs, there are some great
alternatives:

1\. Use one of the many terrific free and open source typefaces that will
cover all the languages and use cases you really need (like Noto or Open
Sans). Or even better, system fonts.

Jeremiah Shoaf has a terrific curated list here:
[https://www.typewolf.com/google-fonts](https://www.typewolf.com/google-fonts)

2\. Threaten to use a free alternative and then negotiate a better deal on
licensing

3\. Go ahead and use your favourite typeface without declaring the full usage
so it is unlicensed or under-licensed. This saves a lot of money and is
actually pretty common.

In the past I've interviewed designers and creative teams about how they
choose and decide to license typefaces. They talk about things like:

* wanting to create exactly the right aesthetic for their brand (i.e. I can only be satisfied by something that doesn't yet exist)

* finding usage-based licensing complex as it creates non-financial costs in terms of understanding, tracking and justifying the licensing costs. That all gets much easier if you own the typeface.

* reducing the risk of inadvertent copyright infringement and subsequent reputational damage

* feeling in control by owning the IP (and therefore not dependent on any third party in future)

~~~
taitems
> That doesn't really hold up. The cost of developing a custom typeface can
> easily run from hundreds of thousands into millions of dollars.

No-one's arguing the up front investment in creating the font, but instead
focusing on the "rent-seeking behaviour" that sees the _recurring_ costs come
in anywhere up to $1M a year. Some foundries charge you per pageview and per
mobile app developer. There is a company/audience size at which keeping track
of pageviews and seat count and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars or
perhaps millions per year is significantly more trouble than the initial hurt
of commissioning a typeface. At the end of the exercise you can wrap it up as
a marketing or branding opportunity and generate a few hundred thousand
pageviews and call it a day.

------
jarjoura
The article didn't mention Arial from Microsoft all the way back in 1982! And
it's probably one of the most used "Helvetica"-like (to avoid licensing) fonts
ever.

~~~
mark-r
The article was about recent trends, not ancient history.

------
koboll
There's nothing like putting Circular side-by-side with a handful of its
imitators to demonstrate how much tighter, sharper, and better-balanced
Circular is than any of them.

------
amyjess
All I can say is that Noto has been one of the most wonderful gifts Google has
given the world.

An ultra-high-quality, visually attractive font family that includes a wide
array of weights and even a decent selection of widths _on top of_ what is
quite possibly the best Unicode support in the world.

I'm at the point where I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth and
just be thankful I have Noto for my typesetting projects.

------
dmitriid
And then these fonts can't display anything outside of the ASCII range (or,
rarely, outside the Latin-1 range).

------
anonu
> Developing a custom typeface can eliminate the recurring licensing fees that
> must be paid to foundries. IBM [4] and Netflix [5] claim to save millions of
> dollars per year by switching from Helvetica to IBM Plex and Gotham to
> Netflix Sans, respectively.

I wasn't aware that these common fonts charged royalties...

~~~
zapzupnz
The prices are swallowed by operating system vendors, usually. Same with codec
licences and so on.

------
EastLondonCoder
Not only companies, Sweden has this for example:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_Sans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_Sans)

~~~
kadfak
Estonia also created its own font for branding purposes recently called Aino:
[https://brand.estonia.ee/design/typography/](https://brand.estonia.ee/design/typography/)

------
LanceH
The primary reason is that with sans serif fonts there are fewer pixels to
send. This isn't really a big deal until you get to the size of Google or
Facebook and it really starts to add up.

~~~
amyjess
I just wish they'd at least use a humanist sans.

I was really sad when Google switched Android's default font from Droid Sans,
a humanist sans (and the direct predecessor of Noto Sans), to Roboto, a neo-
grotesk.

Or when Apple went from Myriad to Helevetica Neue and San Francisco.

I just really hate everything about the way neo-grotesk fonts look, and mobile
UIs have looked awful to me ever since.

~~~
LanceH
I think for Apple is was more about it being organic and locally sourced.

------
spectrum1234
Are there not open source fonts? Seems like this ecosystem would be very
large, since so many designers want to enhance their portfolio. Basically any
font should be a commodity.

What am I missing?

~~~
mark-r
You're missing two things. First, the history of typography - fonts were not
always free to copy and use when there were physical parts involved. Second,
fonts are something that take a lot of work to put together, especially when
done well. Most people can't devote that kind of effort for free.

That said, open source fonts are definitely on the rise. Many people don't
have a problem using a font that isn't quite as refined as the classics, and
some enlightened companies are bankrolling development.

------
wtallis
I don't generally mind a company having a standard typography as part of its
public image. But it irks me that Qualcomm's website delivers webfonts to
ensure that every "Q" that appears anywhere on their site is rendered as their
logo, even in body text where their logo is a significant distraction and harm
to readability.

------
Jabbles
I'd like to highlight Google Noto Fonts, which seem to have been made with an
entirely different purpose - i.e. not brand recognition:

[https://www.google.com/get/noto/](https://www.google.com/get/noto/)

~~~
amyjess
I work on anime fansubs as a hobby, mostly as a typesetter, I use Noto Serif
as my main dialogue font, and I default to Noto Sans (in various weights and
widths) when I need a regular sans to set on-screen text and signs.

It is absolutely _perfect_. And you know what? I don't think I've gotten a
single complaint from anyone about using a serif font for dialogue, which is
something that's really uncommon in the fansubbing community (there is a
tendency to stick to old taboos, even though the reasons why serif fonts were
avoided are no longer valid now that almost everyone, including me, only
releases softsubs). It's just that gorgeous.

The widths and weights Noto is available in is also massively useful to me.
There have been times I've tried to set some text, observed that the regular
is too light and the bold is too heavy... and then I remember that Noto has a
demi. Or when it started to irk me that the width of the font didn't harmonize
well with the width of the Japanese text and I started to play with \fscx
until I realized that I could just use Noto Sans SemiCondensed and get
something that's optically sound.

And the best part is that it's all open-source.

~~~
wiseleo
I probably have seen your work, so thank you. :)

------
chasedehan
I’m curious why Ubuntu as a font was included on this list. While it
technically is a font, it’s a font shipped with an OS. There is no mention in
the article about problems with default fonts shipped with windows or macOS.

~~~
floatboth
They use it for branding too: [https://www.ubuntu.com](https://www.ubuntu.com)

------
Kiro
I don't understand how typeface licensing works. I normally just pay once and
be done with it (essentially buying it) but this thread makes it sound like
you need to pay by usage or something?

~~~
Pulcinella
It depends on the use case and who you are licensing it from.

------
jvagner
I was previously the CEO of a type design & distribution company, if anybody
has questions about the commercial side of things.

------
hbosch
I have a (fair warning) rant here that is likely going to ding my HN karma,
but here-goes.

I work closely with design and I am consistently saddened by the state of the
tech industry when design discussions pop up on HN. They almost always devolve
into a cesspool of blanket criticism and rejection. "Those designers..." an HN
commenter will inevitably say, "...all they care about is making things look
pretty." Well, sure. Yes.

The facts are plain, and actually boring. Customers like pretty products.
Well-designed experiences and objects, compared to purely utilitarian products
of similar functional capabilities, will always sell better. They create more
passionate users and make more money. This is understood by businesses across
the world, almost forever. To read an HN thread on design with no previous
convictions is to see a world where designers are scam artists and their
contributions to the tech industry nothing but snake oil.

Of course there is excess. That's also obvious. Tarsnap and Pinboard are HN
darlings and they clearly place all their emphasis on functional design rather
than visual design, and are very successful businesses. Craigslist as well is
one of these types of businesses. But these companies do not appeal to average
consumers. Pinboard doesn't compete with Pinterest for users – nor could it
ever, nor does it wish to. Would I, as a proponent for modern design
sensibilities, argue that Craigslist doesn't have good design? No! They have
fantastic design... for them. It suits their brand. Would Netflix be
functional if it had a "Web 1.0" Craigslist-style interface? Yes! But people
would hate it. It wouldn't suit Netflix. It would look terrible in a living
room on a TV, for one, but Netflix is a platform for cinematic experiences and
the branding and interface should allow designers the kind of control that
let's them create a suitably cinematic interface – however they wish to do
that. Craigslist works, by comparison, because it is essentially a glorified
newsletter (hot take!).

The price of a custom typeface, depending on who you commission to make it,
can probably range between $100,000 and $500,000 or something like that. For a
mature business like Airbnb or Netflix or Google this is not an investment in
efficiency or in growth. This probably makes the HN reader's head explode. It
is an exercise in fashion and style and distinction. There is a reason that
the console-dwelling set is often stereotyped as the guy in poorly-fitting
jeans and neon sneakers and a hoodie with a shark high-fiving a sasquatch on
the front... they often don't waste time on considering things like fashion or
style or distinction.

One mentor told me that "Design is anything that makes people more
successful". Sometimes this is making one button red and one button green, for
example. Sometimes it is about aligning critical actions to the edges of the
experience, a la Fitts' Law. But I think this is a narrow understanding of
what design can be. Design is also about creating a visual atmosphere, a well-
defined world for the narrative of a product to become more than it's
functions.

Software is allowed to have an emotional quality to it, it is good to delight
users with little illustrations and round buttons. An interface _should_ have
feeling, and mood, and a vibe to it. Personality and soul is always, at some
level, designed – visually and functionally in equally significant parts.

~~~
noir_lord
> There is a reason that the console-dwelling set is often stereotyped as the
> guy in poorly-fitting jeans and neon sneakers and a hoodie with a shark
> high-fiving a sasquatch on the front... they often don't waste time on
> considering things like fashion or style or distinction.

So you go on a rant about 'us' stereotyping designers..by stereotyping us?

Bold.

------
duxup
It's design.... why get all design happy about anything? Because humans like
aesthetics.

------
p0nce
Because it's cool as hell.

------
nerdponx
Interesting to see Source Code/Sans/Serif Pro left out of the discussion.

~~~
majewsky
Adobe is a foundry, so it's not surprising that they design fonts. The more
surprising part of the Source Pro family is the license afaik.

------
CamTin
Why did courtiers at Versailles spend their hordes of gold on the latest
finery?

------
tanilama
Because they have the resources to do it abd they want that level of control?

------
deltron3030
For the same reason some people want tailor made suits.

------
danmg
I wouldn't know. I disable all custom typefaces.

------
fipple
The answer is cost. Then they get a guy wearing all black and tortoiseshell
glasses to tart it up in some language about identity and authenticity.

------
paulie_a
That's why I simply lock all fonts in my browser to a very limited set with a
min and Max size.

------
andrewstetsenko
following the thread to learn the names of the popular fonts :)

------
hpbd
Because they hire lots of designers and they have to keep them busy so they
don't leave.

------
aaaaaaaaaab
Fascinating! I guess I'm gonna continue blocking all custom web fonts like
I've been doing for the past 5 years :)

~~~
whytaka
How do you do this?

~~~
aaaaaaaaaab
[https://collinmbarrett.com/block-web-
fonts/](https://collinmbarrett.com/block-web-fonts/)

~~~
whytaka
Thank you!

------
thrower123
Designers are on the payroll, and feel like they have to be doing something...

------
iagooar
I've never understood the fuzz about typography. Yes, it's important that
fonts that are used a lot meet certain standards - but some people seem to
make a big deal out of it.

~~~
wongarsu
Some people spend a lot of time color coordinating their clothes, some just
wear whatever. Some people try to make everything they write look beautiful
while making it easier to read, some people just type the letters and don't
care.

Good typography can make a massive difference to the presentation of text. To
some people that makes it worth the effort

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
Based on the state of the web in 2018, with it's pop-ups in the middle of the
page, cookie warning, laggy scrolling, and image pop-in that moves what you're
reading, I find it very difficult to believe that that many people actually
care much about the presentation of text.

~~~
aczerepinski
The fact that marketers get to make their contributions to a website doesn't
negate that there's a designer involved who probably cares about typography,
color, space, etc.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
What I mean is that the company clearly doesn't care all that much about
presenting text, so it is difficult to believe that making text more
presentable is one of their motivations.

