4 ms·

Apple, Samsung, Netflix, now IBM... why does everyone need their own typeface? Is it to save on licensing fees? As a user, I don't really find these fonts very

Apple, Samsung, Netflix, now IBM... why does everyone need their own typeface? Is it to save on licensing fees? As a user, I don't really find these fonts very distinctive, so I don't associate them with their brands.

kashprime 9y ago
I guess they don't want to get the Papyrus treatment by Ryan Gosling: https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/1/16392890/avatar-papyrus-font-ryan-gosling-saturday-night-live-tv https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/1/16392890/avatar-papyrus-f...
robotsquidward 9y ago
I think San Francisco and Roboto are distinctively Apple and Google respectively. I also think they matter more because they're system fonts on some of the biggest platforms (and maybe just because I happen to like them). If I ever see this font again, I probably won't even know I'm looking at it.
oddevan 9y ago
In the case of Netflix, it is specifically to save on licensing fees. Gotham is expensive, yo. Apple's always had their own typeface, though I don't remember them using one as heavily as San Francisco. But it feels very in-character for them. Samsung did it, I suspect, because Apple did.
- erikig 9y ago
  Damn you Tobias Frere-Jones, rolling around in your font wealth!
- grzm 9y ago
  Apple's always been focussed on design, in both marketing and UI. In marketing, for a long time everything was Apple Garamond, then Myriad. In the UI, Chicago and Geneva were heavy hitters. Now we have San Francisco. A key difference with this last one is that it's used in both the UI and in marketing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typography_of_Apple_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typography_of_Apple_Inc.
  - zokier 9y ago
    > Apple Garamond, then Myriad The key difference being that Garamond is a classic on its own, and Myriad is even the default font in Adobe products (at least InDesign).
    - grzm 9y ago
      Yeah, the various Garamond variants are classics (tracing their history all the way back to the 15th century!). Apple did commission a dedicated variant for themselves. Similarly, Apple used a Myriad variant, Myriad Apple. That said, my point wasn't that Apple only used Apple designed fonts (which isn't true), but that Apple has always focussed on design in general and typography in particular.
  - oddevan 9y ago
    > A key difference with this last one is that it's used in both the UI and in marketing. That's exactly what I was getting at, thanks!
  - ddrmaxgt37 9y ago
    Also on physical products as well
zokier 9y ago
Especially with company with as many tentacles as IBM, having own typeface also helps ensure consistent design language across the company, both in terms of licensing (they can use it in any media/geography/field they need) and applicability (they can have all the variants etc needed). Of course cost is also a major aspect. Random article claims that "Until recently, it [IBM] was spending over a million dollars each year to license Neue Helvetica for the company". With that sort of money you can afford to make your own fonts too. While I'd agree that e.g. the Netflix font was somewhat non-remarkable/forgettable, I think they did manage to capture surprising amount of IBMness into Plex. I noticed it on their docs pages before they made big fuss about it, and really remarked to myself on how neat the font was.
- mark-r 9y ago
  I agree, they managed to capture some IBMness there. But if they were doing it to enhance their branding, why did they make it open source?
  - exikyut 9y ago
    Probably because they perceive that as being relevant. Plus, if their push is to tie the font back to IBM strongly, allowing anyone to freely use the font is good press, so why not?
dragonwriter 9y ago
Licensing fees savings + brand identity + everyone else is doing it, it seems to me.
khrbrt 9y ago
Don't forget Red Hat! http://overpassfont.org/ http://overpassfont.org/ What are some other corporate fonts?

kashprime 9y ago

I guess they don't want to get the Papyrus treatment by Ryan Gosling: https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/1/16392890/avatar-papyrus-font-ryan-gosling-saturday-night-live-tv https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/1/16392890/avatar-papyrus-f...

robotsquidward 9y ago

I think San Francisco and Roboto are distinctively Apple and Google respectively. I also think they matter more because they're system fonts on some of the biggest platforms (and maybe just because I happen to like them). If I ever see this font again, I probably won't even know I'm looking at it.

oddevan 9y ago

In the case of Netflix, it is specifically to save on licensing fees. Gotham is expensive, yo. Apple's always had their own typeface, though I don't remember them using one as heavily as San Francisco. But it feels very in-character for them. Samsung did it, I suspect, because Apple did.

erikig 9y ago
Damn you Tobias Frere-Jones, rolling around in your font wealth!
grzm 9y ago
Apple's always been focussed on design, in both marketing and UI. In marketing, for a long time everything was Apple Garamond, then Myriad. In the UI, Chicago and Geneva were heavy hitters. Now we have San Francisco. A key difference with this last one is that it's used in both the UI and in marketing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typography_of_Apple_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typography_of_Apple_Inc.
- zokier 9y ago
  > Apple Garamond, then Myriad The key difference being that Garamond is a classic on its own, and Myriad is even the default font in Adobe products (at least InDesign).
  - grzm 9y ago
    Yeah, the various Garamond variants are classics (tracing their history all the way back to the 15th century!). Apple did commission a dedicated variant for themselves. Similarly, Apple used a Myriad variant, Myriad Apple. That said, my point wasn't that Apple only used Apple designed fonts (which isn't true), but that Apple has always focussed on design in general and typography in particular.
- oddevan 9y ago
  > A key difference with this last one is that it's used in both the UI and in marketing. That's exactly what I was getting at, thanks!
- ddrmaxgt37 9y ago
  Also on physical products as well

zokier 9y ago

Especially with company with as many tentacles as IBM, having own typeface also helps ensure consistent design language across the company, both in terms of licensing (they can use it in any media/geography/field they need) and applicability (they can have all the variants etc needed). Of course cost is also a major aspect. Random article claims that "Until recently, it [IBM] was spending over a million dollars each year to license Neue Helvetica for the company". With that sort of money you can afford to make your own fonts too. While I'd agree that e.g. the Netflix font was somewhat non-remarkable/forgettable, I think they did manage to capture surprising amount of IBMness into Plex. I noticed it on their docs pages before they made big fuss about it, and really remarked to myself on how neat the font was.

mark-r 9y ago
I agree, they managed to capture some IBMness there. But if they were doing it to enhance their branding, why did they make it open source?
- exikyut 9y ago
  Probably because they perceive that as being relevant. Plus, if their push is to tie the font back to IBM strongly, allowing anyone to freely use the font is good press, so why not?

dragonwriter 9y ago

Licensing fees savings + brand identity + everyone else is doing it, it seems to me.

khrbrt 9y ago

Don't forget Red Hat! http://overpassfont.org/ http://overpassfont.org/ What are some other corporate fonts?