Am I crazy for expecting fonts to be free? There are so many good options that I can use without paying a license fee. I can't imagine liking the tiny differences in a font so much that I would get myself locked into a yearly licensing fee.
Having worked at Microsoft for years, I also got a chance to work directly with Monotype on custom fonts for a project's specific needs (wearable, tiny screen, specific DPI).
Monotype is amazing to work with. And given the amount of work they did, and what we got out of it, the price was absurdly reasonable.
For your blog? Use a free font.
But if you need a custom font, you really do need a custom font, and Monotype is #1 in the industry for a good reason.
[0]: https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/21/17147170/netflix-sans-cus...
However, if a design team wants to make their own font and has the resources to do so I don't see why not. It's a strong branding move.
Primary glyphs were hand hinted, with glyph of each font size custom made to fit on our grid.
For v2 we ended up using Monotype's awesome embedded font engine that let us have real true type font rendering in just kilobytes of RAM with a 96mhz CPU. Insanely cool tech, I believe we were the first adopters of it, we helped them optimize a fair bit of the underlying engine code, and fixed some bugs along the way.
Still a custom font file though. Both the true type and raster fonts were variants of Segoe, Microsoft's main UI font. We wanted it to be on brand, but also look great on our screen.
So tl;dr that is why the MS Band 2 had really good looking CJK glyphs and it is how we pulled off anti-aliased fonts on a tiny LOL CPU with next to no RAM. :)
I've recognized fast food places abroad with the logo text translated into Arabic or Cyrillic by the font.
Just like software, there are often free alternatives that can suit your fancy... but sometimes, you have to pay for what you really want or need.
You are "crazy"[0] for expecting them to be free. But if you don't want to use a paid font, that's totally within your prerogative.
[0] though I prefer not to use that word, perhaps a better word would be 'entitled'
> You get a total number of prepaid pageviews that can be used over time. This means that you will pre-pay for a number of pageviews, then you’ll have to come back to order more after your site has been viewed that number of times.
> For example, if you order 250,000 page views, when your webpages using the webfonts have been viewed 250,000 times, you will need to buy the webfont package again for an additional number of prepaid pageviews. Pageviews are valid for 4 years.
(Then again I mostly do tools and infra so I'm not in this market anyways.)
Most fonts I see for sale have a one-time license fee for # of views/month. So if you do 500k monthly views you pay ~$99 once, and 5MM views is X*4. That's pretty reasonable to me, the costs are hardly prohibitive.
If you're looking for a fantastic variable font, I can recommend Proxima Vara[0], which is the variable iteration of Proxima Nova. It follows this licensing structure.
Then why not use that word?
I have a weird fascination with fonts. They're pleasing to look at, and interesting to compare. But come on. At the end of the day, pretty much 95+% of contemporary fonts are trivial little tweaks to Garamond, Baskerville, Helvetica, Century, or some other font that hasn't been novel for centuries.
What people are paying for are the most subtle of cues, to make their text subconsciously distinguishable from the next magazine or marketing campaign. For a few years, until the new font becomes old-hat or commonplace, and needs to be revamped again to keep your brand subconsciously fresh.
Obviously there is commercial value in this, or else people wouldn't pay the amounts that they pay for fonts. But I don't understand why we lionize font designers the way the we do.
It is even not needs to be new. Helvetica was designed by Max Miedinger and released by Haas Foundry in 1957. Then it was revised in 1983 as Neue Helvetica. Later, in 2010, it was digitally revived for Bloomberg, with faith on Miedinger’s original designs, and now considered to be best digital design amongst designers (you can even see it’s been mentioned in this thread too). Is it a bad thing that it was revived, even though there were a lot of digital designs(Nimbus Sans and such)? I don’t feel so.
Why do we need new typefaces:
Body and sub-heading text is a bit more forgiving and less detail thirsty, the focus is more on the texture of textblocks rather than the individual letter or words.
If you have to cut up and modify individual letters, Helvetica can be quite nice to work with.
You’re missing a very important point: Designing fonts always cost money. The thing with Google Fonts (and/or with other free fonts) is the price was paid beforehand by Google (or of course, with hobbyists free time).
However, the free market situation is pretty yikes. A few giants and a bunch of boutique foundries (check out https://klim.co.nz/) still make it work, but the open source monetisation problem that we find in software is a lot worse when it comes to fonts, because there is no sustainable product/service to sell with your free font.
Maybe the age of great font making is coming to a close. After what must be hundreds of thousands of great fonts (and so many people still just opting for Helvetica), maybe we got all we need.
That being said, I don't have high expectations or great needs of fonts since legibility is the most important criteria. Fonts are tools to differentiate the structure of a document. In most cases, the design of a document is less relevant.
Fonts can be sold but pricing calculated per page view and device just strikes me as a bit too much. Why not just sell them at a flat rate? Unlike software fonts seldom change once bought so what is the basis for subscription fees instead of one-time sale?
The answer is the same.
A subscription provides ongoing revenue to the developer/publisher, but in the case of software, that revenue is (theoretically) being used to fund ongoing development of the product. Whether this is better for users than the traditional paid upgrade model is debatable, but there's undeniably value to the developer in a predictable revenue stream, and as long as the subscription price isn't totally out of whack compared to the old upgrade model I don't mind it. Assuming the developer is keeping up their end of the bargain, so to speak, and making regular releases of the software, then it's perfectly reasonable for you to keep paying for those releases.
But fonts are mostly a different matter. It's vanishingly rare for there to be more than tiny tweaks to a digital release of a typeface after its initial release. Unless I'm paying for someone else to host web fonts for me -- which Helvetica Now's web font license doesn't seem to entail -- this seems to be considerably more usurious. Print magazines weren't charged an annual cost for their typefaces based on their circulation; web fonts should really be no different.
Where else can you find a sans-serif battle-tested over a century that's variable, for free?