I guess there were Verdana complaints regardless of it clearly being promoted as an on-screen font. People still complain that it's too wide in print and the bold is too bold for print.

It shows that the CleaType team have enough faith and belief on the quality of the work that they'd put the book out there, years before most users will see the fonts in their intended environment.

But proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

Cheers, Si

Who is Bill Troop?
I may have already asked it once in the past, but I don't recall. I see what he writes, limited to the Eth: Is he Icelandic? I thought Briem's suggestions were good for the Eth And Thorn, considered he is, and, being ignorant about them I usually follow his proportions.

hold the front page - I can see the headline now...

Bill Troop doesn't like John Hudson so criticizes new Microsoft screen fonts based on printed samples


Does like or doesn't - this is not the story. As I see it, or part of it, this is a story about who do you know. Not what do you know!!!


John wrote: I recommended some designers....

why? does he work for MS?

>>Price-fixing and cartels are also effective (and usually illegal) ways to do this. All generally good for manufacturers and bad for consumers, say economists.

>Government intervention is generally a good way to stop megacorp monopolists from giving people cheap crap, say citizen activists.

Few of the companies involved are monopolists. Indeed, if they were, they would have *less* incentive to bundle fonts. In reality, competition has been one of the driving factors in font bundling in OSes and applications. Adobe started bundling fonts primarily in response to Corel doing so. Quark's new font bundling is almost certainly part of their competition with Adobe. Apple's bundling of fonts seems to me to be largely part of their attempt to compete with Microsoft.

Your proposal is for less competition, not more.

As for whether the fonts being bundled are "crap" that's a matter of opinion, but I think your opinion is a minority view.

>>So, what's your "solution," Nick? Make both bundled fonts and shareware fonts illegal?

>I don't have a "solution", Thomas, certainly not anything as heavy handed as criminal legislation. But objecting to injustice is always a good place to start.

I never said "criminal legislation."

So, what's "unjust"? You seem to be asserting some sort of moral right here, but it's unclear what exactly it is.

> I'd like to see some solidarity amongst type designers. But as a professional group of any size, we're a relatively new phenomenon. It took a while for art directors and graphic designers to organize. There are type organizations, but they are industry-wide.



> Pardon me for sticking up for the little guy, but some of us don't automatically assume that what's good for Microsoft/Adobe/Apple is good for the world, ennit?

I don't know about "the world," but I assume that what's good for the end user is good for the end user. I think that font bundling is clearly good for the end user. I gather you think the world would be a better place if if they end users had to spend more money to get fewer fonts.

> My point is that there is a lively market in script faces, partly because it's a genre that the bundlers haven't concentrated on saturating. Users' wants and needs for script fonts are not being met by free bundled fonts, so they buy them.

Uh-huh. It would be a lot more productive discussion if you didn't go out of your way to use misleadingly loaded language. There are NO font sub-markets that the folks doing bundling have "concentrated on saturating," because saturating the market is not their goal. To imply otherwise is nonsense.

Also, you keep on referring to bundled fonts as "free." But they're not. People get them as part of a purchase. If it's *free* fonts you're worried about, you should be attacking shareware and freeware developers. But even though the logic is identical, because they are even smaller and less commercial, it's not as easy to get sympathy for that, is it?

As for why small foundries tend to do well with script faces....

Script fonts and wacky display faces have more room for intrinsic variation than usual sans and serif faces. These differences are perceptible to even the average user who doesn't notice the difference between Gill and Helvetica. So there is simply room for more of them, particularly in the mass market, but also even with real designers buying them.

Also, for many kinds of script and display faces, they are also a lot easier to do a passable job of than a workhorse sans or serif. This lowers the skill level barrier to entry, making it easier for less veteran designers to do something in the area.

So there are a couple of reasons why small and indie designers (and shareware developers) tend to do well with script faces - besides how many or few are bundled.

I won't disagree that the fact that there are relatively few of them bundled helps sales. But what you have to ask yourself is *why* are there relatively few bundled? One big reason is that they are inherently more specialized, so from a would-be bundlers' perspective, they aren't getting as much bang for their buck as with some other kinds of fonts. Only when the bundle gets fairly large do script faces become more attractive from that point of view.

Hmmm. I forgot Monotype Corsiva earlier (another MS bundled script font starting with C). Also Sanvito (an Adobe font that has sometimes been bundled).

Cheers,

T

>What is it with this fellow, pushing this
>obviously insincere Christian message.

Easter wishes are highly offensive, indeed.

About the fonts: is there a place where you can license any one of them outside the Windows world? I would have bought Georgia, if it wasn't part of my MacOS, and I'd like to be updated when I exchange text files with my PC friends.

Microsoft must be ashamed of their security arrangements. From the discussion it is obvious that every man and his dog have full sets of the CT fonts and have been testing them in depth for some time now. Even people just on Macs have opinions; so much for the cross-licensing issue.

I have got to admit that I agree with Nick's concern and I share his involvement in having the work of type designers universally recognized, but I agree with Thomas as well, so they can't be saying such opposite things.

I just fear Nick is a little discomforted about the scene, and Thomas tends to give too much for granted the fact we should be satisfied by what computer manufacturers produce.

To make this clearer: I would never buy a word processor like the latest versions of Word: it does so many things I don't need, and there's too much software doing "too much" and losing the essentiality. With fonts, I preferred the old policy of Microsoft, giving away their core fonts with their special "free" license. They never saturated any market, this way, and I continued to turn my ignorant "Times-friends" in more typographically-wise "Georgia-people".

What I don't understand is the use of fonts that would make Windows more insular and reduce cross-platform compatibility.

If these fonts are intended to be system fonts for use within the OS and its apps, then I guess it makes sense, but the inclusion of new general-use fonts that only come with Longhorn just seems like creating a lot of hassle for the end users.

Tina: why? does he work for MS?

Because MS asked me to recommend some designers. Why did they ask me? Presumably because they have worked with me in the past, have commissioned a number of award winning typeface designs from me, wanted to work with me again, and recognised that, unlike some of the present company, I have earned my opinions.

In the past, MS used to work almost exclusively with one type company, Monotype. I deliberately recommended independent type designers like Jeremy Tankard, Luc(as) de Groot and Gary Munch to work with MS, and I'm pleased to see just what good work they delivered, in terms of both design and technical quality. As Tom says, Bill's opinion of the designs is definitely a minority one, and what has he achieved in the decade I have known him that would incline me or anyone else to value his opinion? He knows nothing about type: his own attempts at type design are laughably bad, his writing on type for some 3rd rate computer magazine was characterised by pompousness, wild enthusiasms later disowned, and lack of proofing. All these years later he is still re-fighting his arguments with Robert Slimbach, arguments born of his incompetence and inability to draw a convincing letter eth. Often as I disagree with Hrant Papazian, he has done more than Bill to earn his opinions.

Among other things, the CT font collection for MS proves that small type foundries can compete directly with the larger companies like Monotype and Linotype in the major software market. Tina, why not think about that for a few minutes, and its implications for individual type designers, rather than buying into the lonely vendettas of an envious nobody. Presuming, of course, that you are not Bill posting under another name again.

Dear Bill, when you write John's message mystifies everyone, you don't speak for me. So

Claudio wrote: Thomas tends to give too much for granted the fact we should be satisfied by what computer manufacturers produce.

Huh? I must not have expressed myself very clearly. My basic point is that there's nothing "wrong" with OS and application vendors bundling fonts: it's within their rights, it's not unethical or immoral, and it benefits the end users (the public, if you will). That is not intended to suggest that end users "should be satisfied" with only these fonts, just because they happen to be bundled with other software/OSes.


John wrote: "As Tom says...."

I was addressing Nick, not Bill.


Cheers,

T

"Because MS asked me to recommend some designers. Why did they ask me? Presumably because they have worked with me in the past, have commissioned a number of award winning typeface designs from me, wanted to work with me again, and recognised that, unlike some of the present company, I have earned my opinions."

I see.



"Often as I disagree with Hrant Papazian, he has done more than Bill to earn his opinions."

I don't understand


"Presuming, of course, that you are not Bill posting under another name again."

Ahhhh....No.

>"Bill" you crack me up. What's with putting "John" in quotes? Is that because you secretly know his full name is "Jonathan" or
something?

No. It's because, having learnt the hard way that 'John Hudson' is nearly incapable of truth-telling, I see no reason to accept that his name is 'John Hudson'. The thing with 'John' is, it's never just one story that unravels with him. It's always multiple stories. In the end, you find, you just can't believe anything he says. As Newman wrote to Manning, 'I do not know whether I am on my head or my heels when I have active relations with you.' One of the nice things about John is that he is widely read. One of the nasty things about John is that he doesn't use quotation marks when he is quoting what he has read. The source of his vendetta against me apparently derives from the time, ages ago, when I semi-publicly exposed one of his endless plagiaristic rants.

>I wonder how people (even objective people) would have responded to Verdana or Georgia if they'd seen samples in print (or scans of print samples) before seeing it on screen at small sizes?

I think you're missing the point, Si. The point is that a designer of the calibre of Matthew Carter is incapable of making any of the thousand mistakes obvious at a glance in the new CT fonts.

With regard specifically to Verdana, Verdana didn't come from outer space. It is the rational and perfected descendant of types optimized for small print, such as Adsans. Naturally, if you print it larger than 8 points or so, it will reveal some unattractive features. But like all type optimized for 8 points and less, it does not look good when printed larger. It is Carter's unrivalled knowledge of optical scaling which allowed him to make this type so successful, and we also must congratulate the MS Typography people for taking the risk of releasing a type which would only look really good at small sizes. That is a risk that Adobe, for example, has never been willing to take, which illustrates that MS was really courageous on this occasion.

As for Georgia, that is clearly optimized for 12 points and is a miracle of competence. It looks great on screen, and great in print. Unless you are violently opposed to the style of the Scotch Roman.

My point is, that whatever you may think of the style or overall appearance of either Georgia or Verdana, they are thoroughly professional typefaces, worthy of Microsoft, that do not have a single technical, functional, or aesthetic flaw either in print or on screen, with the single proviso that Verdana does not look at its best when used very large, and Georgia does not look at its best when used very small. By contrast, the new group of ClearType fonts is riddled with errors technical, functional and aesthetic. These fonts simply aren't up to the level of craft of any font MS has ever previously released. And I think, given the overwhelming importance of ClearType technology in Longhorn, and all the hopes Microsoft has rightfully centered on it, that this ought to be corrected.

For those who are concerned about the proprietary nature of these fonts, it needs to be made clear that MS expects that Longhorn will be so overwhelmingly superior to the Mac OS when it comes to onscreen display, that the graphic artist community will at last move over to it. Apple can hardly be unaware of this, and must be taking some measures to counteract it. If Apple moves quickly enough, it may be able to seize the advantage, especially if MS doesn't move quickly to fix this embarassing mess.

Tina - now that we've been linked together by 'John Hudson', could you please email me? I'd like to get to know you. And do you really think there's a story in this? I thought you were pulling my leg!

Wow. Bill, get some counseling. I mean 'Bill.' I think Sergej has the right idea, unless you can start talking nice.

>unless you can start talking nice

You object to my quotation from Cardinal Newman? Or was it my language on the fitting of the u that you found intemperate?

oopsssssy bloopsyyyy..... I'm out of here. Scary.


p.s.
you may not agree with him, his work etc etc - but he's a person with a first&last name: John Hudson.

hooo.... i feel now the goose-flesh. bye everyone

Sorry to offend, Tina - I thought you were John!

>As for whether the fonts being bundled are "crap" that's a matter of opinion, but I think your opinion is a minority view.

Thomas, here's your original comment, and my comment, in context, as a riposte to what you say economists (not you) believe:

>>Price-fixing and cartels are also effective (and usually illegal) ways to do this. All generally good for manufacturers and bad for consumers, say economists.

>Government intervention is generally a good way to stop megacorp monopolists from giving people cheap crap, say citizen activists.

So you see, I am not saying that anybody in particular is giving out cheap crap, just as you are not accusing me of running a price-fixing cartel.

You seem perfectly willing to draw conclusions, from my criticisms, of what I would like to see done to remedy the situation, and then dismiss my criticism on the grounds that your suggestions of what I would do (eg legislation) are immoral or impractical. Come on, argue fair.

I repeat, I am offering no solutions, merely pointing out an injustice. I am not suggesting more or less competition. It is not a personal injustice, (although it does effect me personally, but not to the extent of causing hardship -- I'm doing Ok, even without Microsoft commissions) that's not the reason I speak out

As to whether the bundlers are monopolists, Microsoft, Apple and Adobe certainly dominate the graphic design industry (with Macromedia on Web).

The thing about these three companies and fonts is that they are not primarily foundries; they do not rely on making money from fonts, and can afford to give them away free (yes, they are free, do the math for goodness sake) in order to facilitate sales of their big moneymaking software/hardware.

Do the big fish bundle fonts to compete with one another? Sure, it adds value. But in the process the indie foundry market gets squeezed.

Now, about consumers. Apologists for big business always justify their Big Volume -- Low Margin modus operandi by talking of how low prices benefit consumers. That's true to an extent. But what happens to those consumers who don't have jobs with megacorps? What happens to the mom and pop shops when Wal-Mart come to town?

>there's nothing "wrong" with OS and application vendors bundling fonts: it's within their rights, it's not unethical or immoral,

Sorry, but I consider bundling/dumping to be unethical.

There are many practices which are legal and yet unethical, in certain professions. For instance, graphic design organizations such as the AIGA and GDC have Codes of Ethics which their members (are supposed) to adhere to. Speculative work is a no-no. It's not illegal for the public at large. Now, many people in business, who generally have "free market" views, consider that this is a restrictive practice, designed to push prices up. That's one way of looking at it, but really it's about freelancers and small businesses banding together to prevent themselves being exploited by larger companies with economic clout.

> benefits the end users, the public..

Charming and naive. Bundlers are not philanthropists. It's all about the bottom line.

Now I'm going to say some negative things about the digital revolution. Please, don't infer from this, Thomas, in your usual arguing mode, that I'm a Luddite, and chastise me for biting the hand that feeds. The fact is, most of the productivity gains of graphics digitization have gone to shareholders of software manufacturers and the graphic artists' clients, not to the software jockeys. Why can't the benefits be spread around a little more evenly?

This will be my last message to this thread, and my last to any Typophile discussion in which Bill takes part. Over the years, I have unsubscribed from various discussion lists in which he is active, and was relieved when the moderator of the OpenType list banned him. Years ago, I once, thoughtlessly but inadvertantly embarassed Bill in public on comp.fonts. He refused to accept any apology, public or private, that I offered, and has accused me ever since of everything from piracy to mediocrity and probably worse, at every opportunity. I have dealt with this, for several years, by avoiding him, and should have quit this discussion as soon as he appeared.

Reading what I wrote in anger above, I'm apalled by my own lack of charity, especially on this day, of all days. Bill is a test of my patience that I consistently fail. I'm sorry to have written such nasty things about anyone, even him, and ask Bill's forgiveness. Bill's quote from Cardinal Newman is apposite, because it completely expresses my own feeling about my relations with Bill these many years. Of course, I see the whole thing reversed, that it is he who has a vendetta against me (indeed, whose public life at least seems to consist almost entirely of grudges, as many others can attest). I mean him no ill, and I try to wish him no ill except when he makes me so angry that I respond as above, and then I regret that. And I regret it particularly on this occasion, because I do sincerely want to wish even worse enemies than Bill a happy Easter.

Goodbye, again, Bill. I'm sorry it always ends this way.

who needs TV when typophile can be this entertaining???

Joe, you can call me Mr. Winkler. I mean 'Joe.' And good point about bundling and etc above.

I think 'Bill Troop' is actually Bobby Fischer, just judging by the tendency to lash out in irrational tirades.

Joe, It's not about basic principles, it's about size and level playing fields. What's OK when you have balanced competition is not OK when a few players dominate the game.

I'm glad "these computing companies are making an effort to push the boundaries of on-screen typography". But what has that to do with font bundling? Longhorn will be the major OS on the planet -- a public resource -- and yet by MS bundling its own fonts with the system, the larger community of type designers and foundries will be marginalized.

I'm not discussing the OEM market for type designers, but the retail market for independent foundries.

Commissioned work is good, but so too are the original type designs that independent foundries publish themselves, and the market for these would be a lot larger were it not for massive bundling.

>if Microsoft didn't bundle so many darn fonts, maybe someone would buy yours

Actually, I do sell the occasional font. But that's not the issue. I believe the public -- in the guise of hundreds of foundries and thousands of type designers, -- should be properly represented in the major medium of our time.

Look what's happened with the Internet so far, and how web design has been impoverished by the decision to proceed with only a few core fonts (good though some of them are).

>Sorry, but I consider bundling/dumping to be unethical.

That was also the opinion of Bob Koch, one of the great Adobe product managers, and a great bon vivant. He left the company around 1997 in disgust at what it became after it went public.

>I think 'Bill Troop' is actually Bobby Fischer, just judging by the tendency to lash out in irrational tirades.

You know, Isaac, you haven't said a single intelligent thing about the fonts under discussion here. I have. Why don't you stop beefing, and actually start looking at the type? Isn't that what this is really about? Or is that just too much trouble for you?

>This will be my last message to this thread, and my last to any Typophile discussion in which Bill takes part.

Why all this blather, John? Why don't you respond to the actual technical observations I made about the fonts? Or is that too painful? You know, you're never going to learn anything about type unless you learn to discuss it. And by the way, regarding this fictitious discussion you claim we had on comp.fonts, would you please point me to that? Or does it belong to that 'forgotten' period when you were posing as an authority on copyright and font ethics, all the time stealing Schneider's design for your 'Aeneas' - only to claim, later, when you were found out, that you were 'young' and 'didn't know anything about copyright and ethics' at that time. But all your messages are still on the record, as are mine, and I don't recall this quarrel you speak of on comp.fonts, though there are thousands of posts illustrating that you were perfectly well aware of all the ethical points at issue.

Personalities aside, what is at issue here is the parlous state of the CT collection. Am I the only one here who is actually going to spend the time to look at the type and make a hopefully intelligent observation? I mean to say, you're responsible for these things - you ought to know something about them, and you ought to be able to defend them intelligently. Why don't you just do that, instead of having a tantrum? Could it possibly be that you actually don't have the competence to do that, as I suspect? Well, here's your chance to prove your mettle. Go for it!

Nick,

Wait a sec. You're saying that indie type foundries and individual type designers are "the public" and therefore more important than, say, the actual consumers who buy our stuff? Huh? I must have mis-read that, so please explain what you're saying there.

> You seem perfectly willing to draw conclusions, from my criticisms, of what I would like to see done to remedy the situation, and then dismiss my criticism on the grounds that your suggestions of what I would do (eg legislation) are immoral or impractical. Come on, argue fair.

I didn't draw the conclusions - I asked how you would suggest solving what you see as a problem. The only solution I see as likely to "work" would be legislation, which is why I asked if you wanted to go that route. I did however *ask* rather than *assume* that was what you wanted. It's not as if I went on about that at some great length, either.

Nick, you still insist on using the word "monopoly" incorrectly. You can't claim that three or four companies *collectively* have a monopoly - that would be an oligopoly.

Another word you've brought in which you've mis-used in the past is "dumping." As used in economics and trade, dumping refers specifically to the practice of pricing goods dramatically lower *in a specific geographic market*, generally a foreign country, and usually specifically intended to harm competitors. In this case, the perceived problem is not due to a pricing differential on the bundles between one country and another. Or in some particular location. So it's not "dumping."

Luckily, you have an even nastier sounding phrase you can use here: you can call font bundling a case of "predatory pricing" (dumping is also a specific kind of predatory pricing). We can debate about whether or not bundling fonts with apps and OSes constitutes predatory pricing, but at least you won't be misusing the term by definition.

Definitions aside, you say "it's about size and level playing fields. What's OK when you have balanced competition is not OK when a few players dominate the game."

So bundling fonts would be okay if there were no major applications or OSes, but only a zillion small ones, each with no more than 10% of its market?

And would it be right to say that you think the shareware font scene is unethical because it's morally wrong to give away your work, undercutting the pricing of professionals?

I really do want to understand your views, Nick, even if I disagree with them. When I pose the question above, it's in an attempt to understand what you're saying by repeating in a form that is more clear to me, not because I want to put words in your mouth.

T

I don't have access to the new faces like you apparently do, so until then I'll just observe. The point I was trying to make was that you are not terribly polite. Regardless of the difference of opinion people have (take John Hudson and Hrant for instance), they remain civil and aren't usually prone to personal attacks. You came on here guns blazing, sounding very bitter, like maybe you wanted the commission but didn't get it. Enough of that, I prefer to fight offline.

Back to Phinney and Shinn...

I don't see how Thomas can ever understand Nick's views, or vice versa. Nick is an independent font designer who wants to make a living designing font. Thomas makes a living at a company that subsidizes a font division which has not turned a dime in years, thanks to the sentimental generosity of its founder.

For the record, though, in the days when Adobe's font folk actually had to think about making money, they were relentlessly opposed to bundling/dumping/whatever. I can perfectly well remember a meeting where Bob Koch shrieked, 'Why on earth should we give fonts away? It will kill us!' And he was right.

The problem is that we have too many fonts. The second problem is that we don't have a new font format that everyone has to switch to and thus rebuy their entire base library -- which is where the money is. OT, though an unattractive mess as regards productization, will be OK for new font sales, but real money will never be made in type until there is a new format that everyone has to use and that is diffficult and expensive to develop. How likely is that to occur?

But what about ClearType? It's not exactly a new format, is it? Well, it's a new rasterization technique, miles ahead of anything else on the market, with demonstrable advantages that any user can see at once. But does a ClearType font have enough unique elements to constitute calling it a new format?

This technology is major, and will become far more interesting once there are some CT designs that can be taken seriously, as there ultimately will be. How will Apple respond? How will this affect graphic designers? How will it affect independent font designers? Could we actually now have reached the point where we are witnessing the very beginning of the end for Postscript? How difficult will it be for others outside MS to implement it? What if others come up with technology as good but not necessarily compatible? (Can Quartz compete? - what if it could not only compete, but do so with existing outlines and hinting? - and at a reasonable speed? Is that a reasonable future expectation?)

Microsoft is certainly stirring the pot with ClearType! This could be massive. Is it possible that there will come a time when users demand that the base library -- the 700 most commonly used fonts -- be made available in ClearType? Will users pay for that? Who will develop it? Who will profit, if it is indeed possible to profit from it? Or could there be some other useful font technoloigy on the horizon? And will there ever be a rational, simple way to get round the 1000 unit limitation of the traditional Postscript grid?

Unpleasant in some respects as it may seem that MS is raising the bar on font technology, this could actually be the best thing to happen to the _font industry_, as well as users, in 15 years.

That's the spirit!

>You're saying that indie type foundries and individual type designers are "the public" and therefore more important than, say, the actual consumers who buy our stuff?

No, I said "the public, in the guise of type designers..." -- the public has many guises, because the public is just a generalization for people one doesn't know. The public is everyone, not just the people who buy your stuff.

There are many stakeholders in the realm of typography. You define the end user as a consumer. I define him/her as a citizen. You divide the stakeholders into two groups: producers and consumers, an economic distinction. I divide the stakeholders into more groups, according to different, and often contadictory schema. As a foundry owner, I am a capitalist. But as a designer who's worked freelance for the previous 20 years, I'm also prone to artists-vs-the-world perspectives. As a socialist, I do not believe that free-market economic clout should be the final word. Who gets to decide what type faces most of the world uses most of the time? Why should it be the bundlers?

Whether or not they do a brilliant job of it is not the issue.

>using the word "monopoly" incorrectly.

OK, make that oligopoly. Microsoft/Adobe/Apple, the oligarchs.

"dumping"

Bundling is a form of dumping. Your dictionary definition of dumping is pre-digital, so some adjustment is necessary. I have used the term dumping because it does carry a malicious overtone, which bundling does not (despite its etymological connection to fascism). While bundling is not intended to harm foundries, like dumping it involves the mass distribution of goods, by a major manufacturer/distributor, at prices much lower than the majority of smaller producers can afford to sell.

The oligarchs are not competitiors with indie foundries , but nonetheless, bundling, like dumping, causes them financial harm by diminishing their potential market.

>So bundling fonts would be okay if there were no major applications or OSes, but only a zillion small ones, each with no more than 10% of its market?

No, this would still weaken the retail font market just as much, but on the other hand, it would possibly create a competitive market for type designers working for App/OS producers (ie OEM or original equipment manufacturers). Perhaps some type designers could become galacticos, traded between OS makers for vast sums.

Really, the unbalanced pitch is the unfairness that indie foundries have to make a Return On Investment on the fonts they sell, whereas the oligarch bundlers don't.

>And would it be right to say that you think the shareware font scene is unethical because it's morally wrong to give away your work, undercutting the pricing of professionals?

This is a tricky one, which was discussed in the recent typohile thread about FontLeech. However, anything which can be described as a "scene" doesn't really merit having heavy moral judgements attached to its individual participants. What concerns me more, and why I consider font bundling a serious issue, is the abuse of power (even if it is unrecognized and unintentional) by the oligarchs.

Thanks for being so open-minded!

The fact that the web evolved in such a way that fonts cannot be used as resources the same as images, sounds, etc. is, in a way, a good thing, at least for type producers. Imagine the position type foundries (of any size) would be in if fonts were automatically downloaded from a server when a page loaded the way GIFs or JPEGs are.

As a web user and web designer, this would be a boon. But as someone who is increasingly making a living by selling fonts, it gives me the willies.

I know this is a little off-topic, but I just wanted to point out one of the perhaps unseen aspects of the current limitations of web typography.

Actually, what would be cool (for people who sell fonts): A dialog box that pops on a page sort of like the "missing plug-in" box,

I doubt something like this would ever fly, but I can dream, can't I? :-)

Another perspective on the design cost of the MS 2006 typefaces:

Rather than figuring it per glyph, consider it per installed unit. Let's suppose 10 million Longhorns -- at $100k per typeface that would be equivalent to only a 1 cent royalty.

It must be at least a year's work, to design a typeface from scratch, many weights and styles, massive glyph set. These type designers are the top of their field, the superstars. So I would assume Microsoft paid them at least $1 million per typeface.

After all, recording artists make 10 - 25% royalty, around $2million for a million-selling CD.

Tracy Emin received $150,000 for this recent commission: http://www.biennial.com/?q=node/54

Joe, Mark,

Ideally, web fonts would be installed on a web site server, downloaded as web pages are viewed, then trashed from the browser's cache (or some similar arrangement) when the page closes. Pretty simple, eh?

That way, there would be diversity. Of course, the technology was slightly more bother to implement than simply distributing a set of "core truetype fonts", which is what happened.

>I don't have access to the new faces like you apparently do, so until then I'll just observe.

Issac, I don't have the fonts. Who needs the fonts? The scans at Poynter tell the story. You don't need a font editing program to tell you when sidebearings are wrong. You just need your eyes. So just have a look at what's there - look at the spaces between the letters - it's all there. Look, I don't know how experienced you are in looking at type and I freely admit that it took years after I thought I knew something about type to get to the point where I began to understand spacing - and I am still very insecure about it. But it's just a matter of ... looking. And so few of us seem to do that -- it's really striking.

>The point I was trying to make was that you are not terribly polite.

I'm sorry if I came off that way. I really care about type, and I really think the problems with the CT Collection need to be discussed - with specificity. If I seem too passionate, well, can't you just filter that out? If I didn't feel strongly about something, I would never bother to post.

>like maybe you wanted the commission but didn't get it.

Where did I give that impression? Why would I want such a commission? I know absolutely nothing about designing screen type. The only difference between me and ces autres is that I admit it!

mark simonson wrote:
> Imagine the position type foundries (of any size) would be in if
> fonts were automatically downloaded from a server when a
> page loaded the way GIFs or JPEGs are.

> As a web user and web designer, this would be a boon. But as
> someone who is increasingly making a living by selling fonts,
> it gives me the willies.

mark

I imagine that if fonts were downloaded like GIFs, they would exist somewhere on the user's computer (in the browser cache, as Nick suggests) even temporarilly, savvy users would soon realize this and fish them out of the cache folder for their own use. My fear is that someday browser makers will decide to add such a feature without thinking of the side effects to people like me.

Nick - this is hilarious! You know, you are not the only one in type to think that a font should get a penny per sale on Longhorn? Far from it! There are some large manufacturers who have been making similar calculations. So MS's problem is that those pennies are beginning to add up! And in any case, MS doesn't do royalties except under conditions of the most extreme duress. But as to what they actually got, it varied. The designers were actually asked to name their own prices! I know, I know, it seems incredible, but so it was. So let's say, between 100G and 200G. As for the divine Tracy Emin, speaking for myself, I'd much rather be Tracy Emin than Jeremy Tankard. That bed!!! God, how I wish I'd done it. Mine is exactly like it! (You know that Saatchi has dropped all those artists for the moment in favour of British Traditional? It will be interesting see how that pans out.)

Font embedding for the Web was an idea a bit ahead of its time. Back in 1997/98 Web page text was rendered black and white, hence the Web fonts targeting that environment. They rendered so much better than regular type that it

>But so far the Safari and Firefox devs haven

Do you think it is possible to make a font for the "web" (orinotherwords for screens of 72-96 dpi (yessss there are higher resolutions but...)), and that it'll work better for print than a font made for print?

No.

But that was my point. This makes me wonder why designers so inexperienced in screen technology were commissioned for such large amounts of money to develop screen fonts for the screen technology that is hoped to surpass all others. Shouldn't MS have commissioned people of proven proficiency with screen fonts, such as yourself, Carter, or Chuckalo, in order to give the best possible functional basis for this new technology?

One possibility is that MS is trying to get "hip" by snubbing the experienced old-timers and bringing on board the current generation of type designers regardless of their previous (in)experience or proven accomplishment with the relevant technology (screen, in this case).

But here we are talking about types that are not great by any standard, screen or print. Hopelessly bad fitting is hopelessly bad fitting, regardless of whether it is screen or print. Not to mention the obvious contrast issues that some of the types raise.

>> I doubt something like this would ever fly, but I can dream, can't I? :-)

You're right Mark, it would never fly.
I don't know any web designers who want to receive an e-mail that says:
Dear Sir, thanks for submitting your proposals for our website. We quite like the layout, but that error message asking us to buy a font is something we have never seen before. This is clearly a scam, as everyone knows that fonts are free. We've given the contract to someone who can design websites without this annoying error.

=====================

>> Tracy Emin received $150,000 for this recent commission

Commissioned by the BBC!
And some of that was my f*#@!$g licence fee.
Just what the people of Liverpool wanted as a tribute to the city, I expect, a sculpture of an indeterminate bird by a southerner. Aren't there any sculptors in Liverpool?

Strangely, the BBC have apparently defended the commission as being in the same spirit as Eric Gill was commissioned to produce Prospero and Ariel sculptures for Broadcasting House, in 1933.

=====================

Bill wrote: "The problem is that we have too many fonts."

It's right Bill, but they are of such a varied quality and done with such a different intent, and crafted in such different time-spans (a week versus ten years or more), that it seems evident they are aimed at very different kinds of end-users.

I mean a 13 y.o. boy just cares about having Exocet or Mason (or a a rip-off of them) because they are used in his board or video game, so even a freeware rip-off is fine for him.
On the opposite, people pursuing type and aware of the value of design and typography will determine which quality(ies) has(ve) to be rewarded in a new work or approach.

We may say there's "too many" of everything, but it's up to the single individual to take his/her own path and start understanding the actual value of a dedicated and deeply motivated work. Multinationals are not single individuals.
Although power seems to belong to weird economy schemes, I think it's never been so much in the hands of the single individual like today, if he cares to dig and make careful choices.

And please, stop being so unfriendly with John. Leave your personal concerns for an actual dialogue, and try to be concise (I know it's hard).

Seth Nickell's page shows some of the things the open source crowd is working on in response to things like Avalon and Aqua. Nothing that touches Cleartype... yet.

"Bill" you crack me up. What's with putting "John" in quotes? Is
that because you secretly know his full name is "Jonathan" or
something?

___
Kudos to MS for innovating. They did a great thing for the web
years ago with Verdana and Georgia (and the follow up with
Tahoma). New fonts mean there will be more options and that's
a good thing. I hope Apple takes the cues.

___
Nick, on the one hand you're saying bundling is bad, but on the
other you seem to be saying that they're not bundling enough
variety...

From my perspective, bundling fonts for average people is a
good thing. I'm with Thomas when he asserts that average PC
users are not font buyers. And if I were in the retail font
business I'd concentrate on selling my wares to people who buy
fonts (designers and the related).

___
Si, it's Office v10.1.0 on Mac OS X v10.3.8 (Panther).

Hey, 'Isaac'. You're not really 'Isaac' you look an awful lot like the Fonze.

=)

Is the bundling issue really about these big companies squeezing the little foundries? Neither Microsoft nor Apple are not in the business of selling fonts. They don't sell their own fonts, so why would this hurt type designers or foundries?

Device manufacturers that "get" usability put fonts on their devices all the time. Think about cell phones, PDAs, iPods, PSPs, etc. Device manufacturers that understand that good typography enhances usability, and that usability is as paramount as functionality, are taking the time to develop (or license) good fonts for their devices.

The reason this analogy is not a stretch is because, just like Microsoft and Apple, none of these device manufacturers or developers are in the font business.

Think about this from the perspective of just a few years ago, when device
manufacturers were just fine having the engineering team 'design' the fonts, or when
they didn't care enough to innovate and would just dump Arial onto those tiny screens. The companies that understand usability aspects of good typography are hiring type designers and licensing good type. That is good for type designers.

So, when Microsoft licenses or commissions typefaces you could choose to think, 'boy, I'm glad these computing companies are making an effort to push the boundaries of on-screen typography.' Instead you're caught in a rut thinking that if Microsoft didn't bundle so many darn fonts, maybe someone would buy yours.

Nick, the reason I bring up the OEM fonts is that there's no way
to get a massive penetration of a web font unless the makers of
the OS - or the makers of the browser bundle it.

This is directly related to "the impoverished state of the web."
Amazon specs Verdana, not because Verdana is the best screen
font, but because Verdana is the best screen font that everybody
on the web has.

If a successful foundry had an amazing screen font that they
gave away for free, they would get nowhere near the penetration
that a bundled font with a browser or the OS can achieve.

Can you imagine the millions of web users going out of their
way to download a font (let alone buy it!) so they get an optimal
user experience? This isn't going to happen.

(Then again, who would've thought downloading bad
renditions of pop songs as ringtones would become a
hundred million dollar business.)

I think it is a little crazy to ignore the major impact that the OpenType format has had on the type world. It is *the* format of the moment. ClearType may be all that and a side order of frites, but it only affects Windows users. So as far as I'm concerned the technology won't affect me as I am a mac user.

Here's a stupid question. If these new typefaces for Longhorn were made available to the public, would they look as good on my machine?

Agreed, Gustavo, this deserves it's own thread...

Nick Wrote:

---

quote:

Ideally, web fonts would be installed on a web site server, downloaded as web pages are viewed, then trashed from the browser's cache (or some similar arrangement) when the page closes. Pretty simple, eh?

---

This is exactly what Flash does. Flash is getting more pervasive
all the time, especially as "rich internet apps" take hold. This
follows the print model of font licensing, where the designer
(publisher) licesnes the fonts and the end user (reader) benefits.

I agree this is ideal, because it lets designers remain the ones
thinking about type selection, not end users.