I have no idea how much you know about type design, but I get the sense that the vast majority of people disparaging Roboto don't actually know shit about typography, and are just parroting what's been said by a handful of bloggers (many of whom also aren't particularly well versed). If a lot of these guys were asked to rate a bunch of unnamed fonts without the benefit of the internet to tell them what they think about them, they would probably make some terrible font snob faux pas.

I'm not an expert of typography, but to my eyes, it's a nice, clean, readable screen font. So is the Droid font family. It's not my absolute favourite, but there are more pressing issues in the world.

I've been using an Android phone recently after being iOS-only for the last two years and it's really opened my eyes to the agenda of people like Gruber. Don't expect him to give any Google product a fair shake. His recent gushing review of the hideous skeuomorphisms of iPhoto for iOS demonstrates what passes for tech journalism these days.

Gruber doesn't sum anything up. The post you linked to states that everyone claiming that the font isn't very bad or defending it is wrong. He doesn't say anything else.

It's very very clear that he doesn't care to give anything Android related a single positive thought. I don't care why, it's not something I choose to engage with, but you can't honestly suggest that (1) the linked article actually said anything other than, "I know you are, but what am I," or that (2) ANYTHING Gruber says about Android can ever be taken at face value after his very long and well documented tendency to go beyond the truth to disparage it.

I think that an argument can easily be made that the font doesn't look classically right on a large screen. On the devices I have seen it on (especially because the weight is usually so low that the terminators are essentially invisible) it looks just fine.

But guys, seriously, don't use this on a webpage.

Gruber's post contains nothing substantive except for "The criticism is simply that Roboto is ungainly, homely, unharmonious."

The remainder of the post is a diatribe that only succeeds in saying "nobody else likes it either."

JC almighty.

Why do so many people need to have such STRONG OPINIONS about everything that isn't what they happen to own?

I read a lot of font blog posts and find them impressive, yet ultimately unhelpful. They discuss similarities and differences with other fonts in extraordinary detail. They show images of individual glyphs enlarged beyond practicality and pick at the details. They talk about the people who designed the fonts and their reputations. They talk about the companies who funded them and their motivations. They throw about words like "casual", "rigid", "cheerful", "fresh", "clean", and "rhythm".

Has anyone done any A/B testing? How about controlled surveys? I'd like to see actual data collected from normal people who don't know Helvetica by name.