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

You wouldn't steal a font

fedi.rib.gay

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 421 posts

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#221

Post by tptacek »

gkoberger wrote: post #172
tptacek wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a typeface nerd. Bringhurst is one of 3 books on the end-table next to me right now. I spend a stupid amount of money for Hoefler fonts for my dumb blog. This to me is like the Menswear Guy on Twitter, who will explain in very great detail to you why the Hermès product is significantly better than the generic alternative. He's right, but he also understands that you buy the Hermès product to make a statement. Spe…

Then we aren't disagreeing. I never said anything about stealing or piracy; I agree with you that not being able to afford something doesn't give you the right to take it. I think we're responding to different things. You're upset the original person mentioned piracy, whereas I took their rant to be more about licensing changes being yet another way companies are creeping up prices from one-time-purchase to rent-fore…

No, we disagree. I think those companies should creep up their prices. There aren't enough type designers employed in the world. The social cost to cumbersome font licensing is essentially zero; in fact, for the reason I gave just one sentence ago, it probably tilts the other direction.

Further: the free fonts on your computer are enough. You can do the full range of type design with what ships on Win10 or macOS, and you can do it strikingly. I cringe at my dumb blog typefaces today, because I could get an equally striking effect with the standard web font stack; most of the work is in setting the text, not in picking a particularly mannered typeface.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#222

Post by vunderba »

tptacek wrote: post #219
vunderba wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A typeface does not have a meaningful functional role in a document 100% incorrect. There are fonts that are made specifically to increase legibility for a dyslexic audience. If that's not a functional role than I don't know what is.

Oh for God's sake. You also can't set an instruction manual entirely in DIN Grindel Milk. The implied subtext was the functional equivalence of free and unfree display fonts. The most popular dyslexia font in the world is free.

Ah that's my bad, I read the first statement without seeing that you prefaced it with "as compared to free alternatives".

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#223

Post by notarealllama »

jonhohle wrote: post #181
derefr wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try this analogy out: it's no wonder that people are interested in / have demand for generic reproductions of licensed cultivars of a plant (e.g. buying generic "grape tomatoes" rather than specific, expensive "cherry tomatoes.") It's also no wonder that people will happily buy these generics even when they're not white-box reverse-engineered phenotype reproductions via independent breeding, but carefully bred-true g…

I don’t particularly like the analogy, but love cherry tomatoes. Grape tomatoes are such a blight on this world. Kind of like Arial is to Helvetica. I would never steal a cherry tomato, but will reject a grape tomato at any chance I get.

I can't figure out how to download your comment. (Written in a serif font textarea which will show up as a generic arial)

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#224

Post by gkoberger »

tptacek wrote: post #221
gkoberger wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then we aren't disagreeing. I never said anything about stealing or piracy; I agree with you that not being able to afford something doesn't give you the right to take it. I think we're responding to different things. You're upset the original person mentioned piracy, whereas I took their rant to be more about licensing changes being yet another way companies are creeping up prices from one-time-purchase to rent-fore…

No, we disagree. I think those companies should creep up their prices. There aren't enough type designers employed in the world. The social cost to cumbersome font licensing is essentially zero; in fact, for the reason I gave just one sentence ago, it probably tilts the other direction. Further: the free fonts on your computer are enough. You can do the full range of type design with what ships on Win10 or macOS, and…

Okay, we disagree then! I hope you take the time to reflect on how weird and aggressive you've made this whole conversation, but it seems this is where we part ways.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#225

Post by rendaw »

tptacek wrote: post #92
phony-account wrote: post #24

Is this the wrong time to rant about font licensing though? I’ve always bought and paid for fonts, but as I’ve gradually transitioned to mobile app development, I one day realized that all the fonts I bought for print are now worthless to me. These crazy outdated licenses that let you print as many magazines or books you want forever, for a one-time price. But if your hobby is making apps, then suddenly the same font…

There is maybe nothing in the entire world that I am less sympathetic towards than the cause of font piracy / font liberation. You have perfectly good --- in fact, historically excellent --- fonts loaded by default for free on any computer you buy today. Arguing for the oppression of font licenses is, to me, like arguing about how much it costs to buy something at Hermès. Just don't shop at Hermès.

I feel like you're arguing against a point GP entirely didn't make. GP is saying there's a market mismatch here - there's money on the table that font makers are ignoring, and simultaneously apps end up using uglier default fonts. Both parties could benefit from meeting in the middle.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#226

Post by tptacek »

rendaw wrote: post #225
tptacek wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is maybe nothing in the entire world that I am less sympathetic towards than the cause of font piracy / font liberation. You have perfectly good --- in fact, historically excellent --- fonts loaded by default for free on any computer you buy today. Arguing for the oppression of font licenses is, to me, like arguing about how much it costs to buy something at Hermès. Just don't shop at Hermès.

I feel like you're arguing against a point GP entirely didn't make. GP is saying there's a market mismatch here - there's money on the table that font makers are ignoring, and simultaneously apps end up using uglier default fonts. Both parties could benefit from meeting in the middle.

I agree except for the "piracy would be less of a problem" thing.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#227

Post by tptacek »

gkoberger wrote: post #224
tptacek wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we disagree. I think those companies should creep up their prices. There aren't enough type designers employed in the world. The social cost to cumbersome font licensing is essentially zero; in fact, for the reason I gave just one sentence ago, it probably tilts the other direction. Further: the free fonts on your computer are enough. You can do the full range of type design with what ships on Win10 or macOS, and…

Okay, we disagree then! I hope you take the time to reflect on how weird and aggressive you've made this whole conversation, but it seems this is where we part ways.

I may just be more comfortable disagreeing than you are! It's certainly not personal.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#228

Post by rondini »

wubrr wrote: post #163
gkoberger wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I think we're just looking at it from different perspectives. Yes, most people are fine choosing from the fonts available on their computer when writing a document. But that's not what me nor OP are talking about. We're talking about shipping software (like a mobile app), or publishing a blog post. In that case, the best you can specify is either a very common font (Helvetica, etc), or a high-level classification…

> There are many free fonts out there, yes, but there's a reason they're free. Go on and tell me what that reason is then. Are you also going to tell me free open-source software, like Linux is low-quality because its free? > The quality for a majority of them is significantly lower Again, a completely baseless, unprovable assertion. > You don't have to agree, but I'm not being absurd or lacking sincerity. What do yo…

You’ve been combative throughout this thread, and it's clear that you don’t see typography or design as disciplines that warrant serious thought. I don't think you're actually willing to engage with an explanation of why it matters but I'll try anyway.

System fonts are the absolute bottom of the barrel. Some are well designed but using any of them is a visual shorthand that you didn't care enough to put thought into your design. You're associating your product with the ocean of amateur work on the internet, giving the impression you copy pasted a template.

There are some high quality free fonts typically backed by massive organizations with actual typographic expertise. Most free fonts however, are amateur work that are technically and functionally lacking. Professional fonts are well designed at all weights, they're carefully spaced, they include much larger character sets to support more languages, contain features like lining and non-lining figures, variable font weights, small caps... are those all slight differences?

There’s a reason so many articles exist with titles like “Google Fonts That Don’t Suck”. Most of them do. If you are a professional whose job requires working with type, then choosing a font is foundational to your product. Arguing that all design is BS is just lazy; it's not a coherent argument.

I highly recommend practicaltypography.com, a free web book that discusses all of this and more, including why system fonts are bad and why a professional typeface is worth paying for.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#229

Post by tptacek »

vunderba wrote: post #222
tptacek wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh for God's sake. You also can't set an instruction manual entirely in DIN Grindel Milk. The implied subtext was the functional equivalence of free and unfree display fonts. The most popular dyslexia font in the world is free.

Ah that's my bad, I read the first statement without seeing that you prefaced it with "as compared to free alternatives".

Sorry for coming at you that hard, it just felt like a gotcha. But we both misread each other!

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#230

Post by dcow »

tptacek wrote: post #92
phony-account wrote: post #24

Is this the wrong time to rant about font licensing though? I’ve always bought and paid for fonts, but as I’ve gradually transitioned to mobile app development, I one day realized that all the fonts I bought for print are now worthless to me. These crazy outdated licenses that let you print as many magazines or books you want forever, for a one-time price. But if your hobby is making apps, then suddenly the same font…

There is maybe nothing in the entire world that I am less sympathetic towards than the cause of font piracy / font liberation. You have perfectly good --- in fact, historically excellent --- fonts loaded by default for free on any computer you buy today. Arguing for the oppression of font licenses is, to me, like arguing about how much it costs to buy something at Hermès. Just don't shop at Hermès.

I guess you’ve never worked with one of those designers whose friend’s cofounder’s VC’s boyfriend shops at Neeman Marcus. Try telling one of them they have to use a normal legible tried and true font :s
Post reply on HN