Web font monopoly

[Daudio]

web font monopoly editorial on cNet (http://news.com.com/Microsofts+forgotten+monopoly/2010-1032_3-6085417.html?tag=fd_carsl)

[iamback]

web font monopoly editorial on cNet (http://news.com.com/Microsofts+forgotten+monopoly/2010-1032_3-6085417.html?tag=fd_carsl)Oh, this is a nice idea:The time has come to break the Microsoft monopoly on fonts. This is easier than it sounds.
and then Lie goes on to explain:Some will claim that Web fonts cannot be supported due to the risk of piracy. It is feared that people will put fonts on the Web without having permission to do so. As we know, this sometimes happens with images. Unlike some images, however, TrueType fonts carry information about permissible use. The font will know whether it's OK for it to be installed on a remote system. Only fonts that allow this should be considered for use by browsers.(my emphasis)

Easy??? This implies that browsers need to be changed to support this idea. Since Microsoft still has the monopoly on browsers I'm not hopeful this will actually happen. It's not as though web designers or font makers can do anything until browsers actually support this idea.

No, not "easy" at all.

(And note that "Howcome" Hakon Wium Lie is chief technology officer of Opera Software...)

[ktinkel]

web font monopoly editorial on cNetA cute pipe dream, I am afraid.

It is true that we increasingly need better web fonts — to embrace more languages, for one thing — but it probably takes a Microsoft to get them distributed in usable form and accepted by the masses. Otherwise, they may as well not even exist.

As Lie points out, there are freeware fonts available for use. Any of us could specify them, and suggest that our readers download and use them. But there seems to be scant interest.

Besides, the costly process of super-hinting for web reading is unknown on freeware fonts.

Usage stipulations in some TT fonts cannot be “read” by current browsers, so we would have to wait for that as well — browser makers, even open source browser makers, would reasonably be reluctant to walk into font piracy lawsuits.

Just a pipe dream.

[donmcc]

Reading the responses to that commentary are almost as interesting as reading it. Generally the consensus is that the author is full of it.

One thought I had though: What if Adobe was to make a collection of about a dozen of its fonts available free the way MS did in the past. Would those fonts become common enough to get use? I know the licensed ones wouldn't be available, but I think Adobe has a wide range of fonts that they control completely. Perhaps the goodwill raised would offset the fact that the project would be negative revenue.

Thomas: are you listening?

[Michael Rowley]

Marjolein:

TrueType fonts carry information about permissible use

So do OTF fonts. The standard font permissions have long been supported by Apple and Microsoft, and Adobe seem to do so too, since it's giving the same information in its OTF font files.

[ktinkel]

One thought I had though: What if Adobe was to make a collection of about a dozen of its fonts available free the way MS did in the past. Would those fonts become common enough to get use? What? you don’t use Minion Web all the time? <g> Adobe developed it, along with several others quite a few years ago.

They did not give the fonts away, which may be part of the problem. Unlike MS, they did not have a browser to boost. But they also did not promote them successfully (or the market was more successful at resisting!) They work rather well, actually, and would add something to online texts (especially Giddyup, don’t you think?).

Take a look (attachment).


::

[Steve Rindsberg]

>>Easy??? This implies that browsers need to be changed to support this idea. Since Microsoft still has the monopoly on browsers I'm not hopeful this will actually happen. It's not as though web designers or font makers can do anything until browsers actually support this idea.

I've no idea how it works in IE but MS went utterly overboard in protecting embedded fonts in PowerPoint (not sure of the rest of Office) 2003. If you embed a font in a PPT file and give it to me, the file opens read-only and uneditable if I don't have the font myself or if the font's permissions don't permit edit or install embedding. The lawyers only relented and let them add the ability to substitute a font you have for the embedded one in SP2.

[Steve Rindsberg]

In a way, Adobe did (almost) give fonts away. Way back when, you got a nice set of base PS fonts when you purchased ATM.

[ktinkel]

In a way, Adobe did (almost) give fonts away. Way back when, you got a nice set of base PS fonts when you purchased ATM.And they give fonts away with their major apps.

Actually, they could easily support giving away screen-optimized fonts with Acrobat (or even Reader), to support its use.

But just as Microsoft is known for its dislike of licensing technology from any other party, Adobe is famous for not liking to give things away.

I once heard John Warnock reply to a question about whether the Acrobat (then Carousel, I think) Reader would be given away to users. He professed to be astonished at the question, and said, no they would license it like any other software. Then he said, “Licensing has been very, very good to Adobe.”

Even though Adobe does give away Reader now, I imagine that policy endures.


::

[Michael Rowley]

Steve:

'MS went utterly overboard in protecting embedded fonts in PowerPoint (not sure of the rest of Office) 2003

MS have been honouring designers' wishes regarding font embedding right from the beginning, at least in Word. Designers can choose one of four 'permissions': (a) anything goes; (b) you can use the font on your system to display, print, or edit the document; (c) you may only display and print the document (that's the one your fussing about, and the least you can concede if you're the designer, according to Adobe); (d) embedding? p*** off!.

I don't think these choices are unreasonable, but I don't buy fonts with any less than pemission (b), or for special purposes, (c).

[Michael Rowley]

KT:

What? you don’t use Minion Web all the time? <g> Adobe developed it, along with several others quite a few years ago.

Minion Web was distributed by Microsoft as a TTF font some time ago (it was for InternetExplorer 4), but not available from Adobe. Now it's part of Adobe's web set, which isn't very expensive, and I would use if I was a web designer (you didn't see me bless myself, I hope).

[Michael Rowley]

KT:

“Licensing has been very, very good to Adobe.”

But giving Acrobat Reader away and licensing Acrobat has been even more lucrative: it really was a masterstroke.

[ktinkel]

But giving Acrobat Reader away and licensing Acrobat has been even more lucrative: it really was a masterstroke.They were forced into it, I am sure. Acrobat was not exactly a slam dunk in its early days.

[donmcc]

Actually, they could easily support giving away screen-optimized fonts with Acrobat (or even Reader), to support its use.



Now that you mention it, didn't Minion and Myriad come with Reader at one point? They were used with MM technology to replace serif or sans serif fonts that were not downloaded into the PDF file, if I recall.

[ktinkel]

Now that you mention it, didn't Minion and Myriad come with Reader at one point? They were used with MM technology to replace serif or sans serif fonts that were not downloaded into the PDF file, if I recall.Not exactly — or at least I don’t remember that.

What did (does?) ship with Acrobat and Reader were Adobe Sans MM and Adobe Serif MM, which looked in practice a hell of a lot like Myriad and Minion. But they were invisible to the user, invoked just when font substitution was called for.

[dthomsen8]

What? you don’t use Minion Web all the time? <g> Adobe developed it, along with several others quite a few years ago.


Nice fonts, but of very limited use. If I specified one of these, most users would not have it, and they would get the next font I specified, or else a default font they specified, and where is there any progress, or even a point?

Of course, I could print on paper with these fonts, or use them in a PDF, or embed them in an image, but those uses don't take me very far.

Microsoft's dominance in browsers and in office software means that what they provide for free with the OS, or with the browser, or with MS Office is what most Windows users have as fonts. Even many Mac users have at least some of the Microsoft developed fonts.

Widely used fonts not controlled by Microsoft would be a good thing, but it is unlikely to happen, unless, of course, the government forced it to happen.

[Michael Rowley]

KT:

Acrobat was not exactly a slam dunk in its early days

If I knew what a 'slam dunk' was, I might agree (or disagree) with you; but the fact is, I don't know what 'early days' means either. But I do know that almost every organization that has documents to distribute distributes them in PDF format and has a link to the free Adobe site, which gives the user exactly the right version of Acrobat needed for his OS. Since the distributors of the documents almost always use the very expensive Acrobat to make them, despite the many competitive programs, I'd reckon that the sales of Acrobat over the last five years have been very healthy.

[donmcc]

Ah, I knew it was something in the MM realm.

[Steve Rindsberg]

I don't think the levels of permission are unreasonable either. That's not my point.

It's that until recently (and even MS has seen the error of its ways) if I gave you a file that included an embedded font with certain characteristics, you could not edit *anything* in the PPT. Or even substitute a different font that you *did* own and have rights to use. THAT part was ridiculous.

[Steve Rindsberg]

>> I once heard John Warnock reply to a question about whether the Acrobat (then Carousel, I think) Reader would be given away to users. He professed to be astonished at the question, and said, no they would license it like any other software.

And so they did for quite some while after Acrobat was released. IIRC, the Reader was $35 ... probably double that at today's rate. And Exchange, Distiller and the rest were sold individually at astonishing prices.

Well. That was the plan. 'Bit hard to rent the stage at $1000/night when there's nobody in the audience to play to. Acrobat went nowhere until they freed the Reader.

[donmcc]

I understand that logic (charging for things). Perhaps more than I understand the open source movement of making software free. But some times you can make more money by giving things away.

Reader is a great point. It made very little income when charged for, but now that it is free the sales of the full Acrobat package are way higher.

I wonder if Adobe packaging 12-20 fonts for free web use would also result in greater typographic awareness, resulting in higher sales of other fonts in the future.

[ktinkel]

And so they did for quite some while after Acrobat was released. IIRC, the Reader was $35 ...

Well. That was the plan. 'Bit hard to rent the stage at $1000/night when there's nobody in the audience to play to. Acrobat went nowhere until they freed the Reader.Absolutely! And the universal reaction in the crowd (it was a press conference at, I think, a Seybold meeting) was that Adobe was nuts, thinking it could create a market for what was then still a somewhat mysterious new product by making people pay just to read the files!

[ktinkel]

But I do know that almost every organization that has documents to distribute distributes them in PDF format and has a link to the free Adobe site . . .That’s now. When Acrobat was first introduced — it was called Carousel at the time — no one quite understand what it was supposed to do. There was nothing like it, and the language John Warnock (major spokesperson for all thing PostScript) used was new and somewhat arcane.

I was in the press crowd then, and when this thing was first introduced, we all scratched out heads (well, some of us more than others). Then it had to have a name change, and was still a mystery. Then they shipped different configurations, and tuned the way it would be marketed. It took three releases before users started to get it.

I do not remember exactly when they relented on the Reader and began to give it away, but I think that is what made Acrobat acceptable to users.

Current circumstances are the end of a long and winding story.


::

[Michael Rowley]

Steve:

if I gave you a file that included an embedded font with certain characteristics, you could not edit *anything* in the PPT

Ah! I didn't realize that PowerPoint was different in that respect. The only thing about embedding that's annoying in Word is that Word looks for TTF fonts per se and doesn't look to see that 'permissions' are set, which they are in all TTF font files but also in OTF font files. That may be just easier to program, but it looks like an anti-Adobe measure! The same OTF file works a treat if it's converted to TTF (as you now know), but you lose access to the non-Latin Unicode ranges.

[Michael Rowley]

KT:

I do not remember exactly when they relented on the Reader and began to give it away, but I think that is what made Acrobat acceptable to users.

At least eight years ago, I think, but I don't remember when Adobe stopped giving Acrobat Reader (free) to poople to put on their Web sites and changed to links to the Adobe/Reader site.

[iamback]

I don't remember when Adobe stopped giving Acrobat Reader (free) to poople to put on their Web sites and changed to links to the Adobe/Reader site.I guess (and can imagine) they want download statistics - you can get that when it's on your site (and more or less by adding magazine cover CDs and inclusion in software distribution files since they have circulation numbers, with some assumed percentage installing) but you can't get it when the downloadable file is all over the place.

[Michael Rowley]

Marjolein:

I guess (and can imagine) they want download statistics

No, I don't think that was the main reason. The files downloaded from miscellaneous site were often out of date or were the wrong version for the downloader's operating system. It was made worse by USA's encoding laws too (now obsolete), when 128-byte encoding came in. Now they find what they assume to be the right Acrobat version for the 'calling' computer, although you can select another version. And you can find out what version, say, an old Mac will require, so that if you're making PDFs you can set the encoding accordingly.

[Gerry Kowarsky]

What did (does?) ship with Acrobat and Reader were Adobe Sans MM and Adobe Serif MM, which looked in practice a hell of a lot like Myriad and Minion. But they were invisible to the user, invoked just when font substitution was called for.

The first Adobe Sans MM was, in fact, Myriad because the font developed specifically for Acrobat was not ready in time to be included in Release 1.0. At some point, the current version replaced the original.

[Steve Rindsberg]

I can imagine the consternation. For some reason, the concept, if not the pricing, made immediate sense to me. And if memory serves, Adobe started to see reason around the same time that JohnC went to work for them. Good man, that JohnC.

[ktinkel]

. . . Adobe started to see reason around the same time that JohnC went to work for them. Good man, that JohnC.Indeed he is.

Um, does that mean we have to blame him for Adobe’s decisions ever since? ;)

[Gerry Kowarsky]

Absolutely! And the universal reaction in the crowd (it was a press conference at, I think, a Seybold meeting) was that Adobe was nuts, thinking it could create a market for what was then still a somewhat mysterious new product by making people pay just to read the files!

If I recall correctly, Carousel/Acrobat was introduced at the 1993 meeting of the Adobe Technology Exchange.

[ktinkel]

If I recall correctly, Carousel/Acrobat was introduced at the 1993 meeting of the Adobe Technology Exchange.Makes sense — I was thinking this press conference was at some meeting in San Francisco in late 1993 or 1994.

But I would have to look up old MacPrePress articles to figure it out . . .

[Steve Rindsberg]

Don't the decisions get made down in MountainView. I think he's safe up there in Seattle.

[ktinkel]

Don't the decisions get made down in MountainView. Mountainview? Not since the Frame acqisition. Now Adobe lives in San Jose.

When I lived in Berkeley, San Jose was a bunch of gas stations and a gorgeous mission. Now, well, now it is huge and bustling, and full of Adobe-like places. <g>

[iamback]

When I lived in Berkeley, San Jose was a bunch of gas stations and a gorgeous mission. Now, well, now it is huge and bustling, and full of Adobe-like places. <g>Not to forget several IBM labs. (One of which I spent 12 weeks at.)

[ktinkel]

Not to forget several IBM labs. (One of which I spent 12 weeks at.)Oh, IBM — can’t forget them!

[ktinkel]

The first Adobe Sans MM was, in fact, Myriad because the font developed specifically for Acrobat was not ready in time to be included in Release 1.0. At some point, the current version replaced the original.Interesting. Didn’t know that.

[iamback]

Oh, IBM — can’t forget them!:)

I do remember seeing an Adobe office. A Maxtor one as well if I remember correctly - or some other major HD manufacturer.

[ktinkel]

I do remember seeing an Adobe office. A Maxtor one as well if I remember correctly - or some other major HD manufacturer.There are lots of big Silicon Alley outfits in San Jose today. Big change from the early 1960s, though. It was an “out in the country” sort of place then. No more of that!

[Steve Rindsberg]

San Jose it is then.

Been there (HP, not Adobe). There's the Winchester mansion too, isn't there?

[ktinkel]

There's the Winchester mansion too, isn't there?Is that the same as Winchester Cathedral? :rolleyes:

[Franca]

There's the Winchester mansion too, isn't there?Yep! And well worth the visit, though I was skeptical before I went.

[Steve Rindsberg]

Is that the same as Winchester Cathedral? :rolleyes:
You're bringin' me down.

[Steve Rindsberg]

The times I've been in SJ, I've never had a chance to get there. I've heard it's a lot of fun.