3 ms·

Looks like a ripoff to me: http://theunderstatement.com/post/11645166791/roboto-vs-helvetica http://theunderstatement.com/post/11645166791/roboto-vs-helv...

by Steko 15y ago

ajross 15y ago
I see two sans serif fonts in the same broad style and line width. It's not clear if the identical metrics are the defaults or an artifact of the presentation there (though "stealing" font metrics for the purpose of layout unification has a history much longer than the tech industry's). And Helvetica Neue is hardly an Apple invention anyway; it's a rejiggering of an ancient font everyone has been using and cloning for decades. Really, what's the point here? That Roboto is another entry in the Helvetica/Arial family of sans serif typefaces? Shocking! Edit: If I had to find a flame in this area: I think it can be argued that if Google really wanted to make the Roboto font into part of the Android brand, to the extent that they market it via its own name, they should have worked harder at making it unique. This is, indeed, a very bland tweaking of a strong existing standard. It's not something particularly notable.
- Steko 15y ago
  No one said it's an Apple ripoff, it's a Helvetica ripoff and not the first (famously). It does epitomize the difference between Apple, which just goes and writes the check and Google, who seem intent on following Microsoft down a road of "embrace and extend".
  - sp332 15y ago
    Microsoft licensed Frutiger and Segoe for their mobile platform.
    - Steko 15y ago
      Microsoft today and MS in the 80's and 90's are really different beasts. MS today is like the wild cat that got neutered, gained 15 pounds and now he just flops on the carpet all day and waits for din din. Thank you EU antitrust regulators.
  - ajross 15y ago
    Dude, it's a font. How does a font (one with apparently compatible metrics, even) constitute "embrace and extend?" And what's wrong with cloning a font? You seem to be making a moral point here, but I can't for the life of me see what it is.
    - Steko 15y ago
      I guess there's 2 points: (1) it's a ripoff, that's certainly been contested in this thread. (2) the right thing to do is license it or at least acknowledge that the font isn't original. Here's what Matias said at the event yesterday: "Meet Roboto. It's a totally new typeface ... Built from scratch"
      - ajross 15y ago
        Perhaps it's because of the use of the loaded term "ripoff". That's a troll's term; don't be surprised if you get into flames when you use it. But the core issue here is that you don't understand the typography industry. Typeface vendors have been cloning and selling each other's work since long before fonts were something rasterized on a computer. Helvetica happens to be one successful font, and it's spawned a huge number of clones. You're probably aware of Arial, but there's also Nimbus Sans, Swiss, Triumvirate (yes, I used Google to look those up, but I'm pretty sure the list gets into the dozens). So Helvetica Neue and Roboto are new entries in the family. Apple chose the former and plugged it needlessly via marketing. Google hired a font designer (for reasons that likely have to do with the ability to open source the result, c.f. the Droid Sans fonts earlier, or the Bitstream Vera family in desktop linux) to do their clone, and likewise plugged it needlessly. That you insist on making some kind of platform flame out of this is beyond me. It's just not interesting.
        Steko 15y ago
        Shorter ajross: it's ok to ripoff things but it's not ok to call a ripoff a ripoff. "But the core issue here is that you don't understand the typography industry." The core issue here is you want to make this about me. It isn't. You don't know the first thing about what I do and don't know. "So Helvetica Neue and Roboto are new entries in the family." Yes, put the dominant san-serif font in publishing over the last 30+ years and a clone that debuted yesterday on an equal footing -- that's an incredibly fair and honest summary of the situation.
  - bradleyland 15y ago
    If we want to go down that road, we end up back at Akzidenz-Grotesk. Almost all modern grotesque fonts (and certainly the popular ones) are derived from some previous work. I still prefer Helvetica Neue, but I don't begrudge Google for developing their own font based on Helvetica.
    - Steko 15y ago
      I don't begrudge Google for developing their own font based on Helvetica either. The point of this sub-thread is really establishing that Google developed their own font based on Helvetica. A number of posters have contended that they aren't that similar.
      - bradleyland 15y ago
        Well, good luck with the "similarity" argument when it comes to fonts. We are, after all, talking about letter forms. Within the sans-serif family, the degree of similarity has a lot to do with how much attention you pay to fonts and typography in general. Keep in mind that to some people (who probably don't care about cars) a Ford Fusion and VW Jetta look pretty similar. The same rules apply here. Similarity is in the eye of the beholder unless you're talking about some quantifiable metric.

Looks like a ripoff to me: http://theunderstatement.com/post/11645166791/roboto-vs-helvetica http://theunderstatement.com/post/11645166791/roboto-vs-helv...

by Steko 15y ago

Looks like a ripoff to me: http://theunderstatement.com/post/11645166791/roboto-vs-helvetica http://theunderstatement.com/post/11645166791/roboto-vs-helv...

ajross 15y ago

I see two sans serif fonts in the same broad style and line width. It's not clear if the identical metrics are the defaults or an artifact of the presentation there (though "stealing" font metrics for the purpose of layout unification has a history much longer than the tech industry's). And Helvetica Neue is hardly an Apple invention anyway; it's a rejiggering of an ancient font everyone has been using and cloning for decades. Really, what's the point here? That Roboto is another entry in the Helvetica/Arial family of sans serif typefaces? Shocking! Edit: If I had to find a flame in this area: I think it can be argued that if Google really wanted to make the Roboto font into part of the Android brand, to the extent that they market it via its own name, they should have worked harder at making it unique. This is, indeed, a very bland tweaking of a strong existing standard. It's not something particularly notable.

Steko 15y ago
No one said it's an Apple ripoff, it's a Helvetica ripoff and not the first (famously). It does epitomize the difference between Apple, which just goes and writes the check and Google, who seem intent on following Microsoft down a road of "embrace and extend".
- sp332 15y ago
  Microsoft licensed Frutiger and Segoe for their mobile platform.
  - Steko 15y ago
    Microsoft today and MS in the 80's and 90's are really different beasts. MS today is like the wild cat that got neutered, gained 15 pounds and now he just flops on the carpet all day and waits for din din. Thank you EU antitrust regulators.
- ajross 15y ago
  Dude, it's a font. How does a font (one with apparently compatible metrics, even) constitute "embrace and extend?" And what's wrong with cloning a font? You seem to be making a moral point here, but I can't for the life of me see what it is.
  - Steko 15y ago
    I guess there's 2 points: (1) it's a ripoff, that's certainly been contested in this thread. (2) the right thing to do is license it or at least acknowledge that the font isn't original. Here's what Matias said at the event yesterday: "Meet Roboto. It's a totally new typeface ... Built from scratch"
    - ajross 15y ago
      Perhaps it's because of the use of the loaded term "ripoff". That's a troll's term; don't be surprised if you get into flames when you use it. But the core issue here is that you don't understand the typography industry. Typeface vendors have been cloning and selling each other's work since long before fonts were something rasterized on a computer. Helvetica happens to be one successful font, and it's spawned a huge number of clones. You're probably aware of Arial, but there's also Nimbus Sans, Swiss, Triumvirate (yes, I used Google to look those up, but I'm pretty sure the list gets into the dozens). So Helvetica Neue and Roboto are new entries in the family. Apple chose the former and plugged it needlessly via marketing. Google hired a font designer (for reasons that likely have to do with the ability to open source the result, c.f. the Droid Sans fonts earlier, or the Bitstream Vera family in desktop linux) to do their clone, and likewise plugged it needlessly. That you insist on making some kind of platform flame out of this is beyond me. It's just not interesting.
      - Steko 15y ago
        Shorter ajross: it's ok to ripoff things but it's not ok to call a ripoff a ripoff. "But the core issue here is that you don't understand the typography industry." The core issue here is you want to make this about me. It isn't. You don't know the first thing about what I do and don't know. "So Helvetica Neue and Roboto are new entries in the family." Yes, put the dominant san-serif font in publishing over the last 30+ years and a clone that debuted yesterday on an equal footing -- that's an incredibly fair and honest summary of the situation.
- bradleyland 15y ago
  If we want to go down that road, we end up back at Akzidenz-Grotesk. Almost all modern grotesque fonts (and certainly the popular ones) are derived from some previous work. I still prefer Helvetica Neue, but I don't begrudge Google for developing their own font based on Helvetica.
  - Steko 15y ago
    I don't begrudge Google for developing their own font based on Helvetica either. The point of this sub-thread is really establishing that Google developed their own font based on Helvetica. A number of posters have contended that they aren't that similar.
    - bradleyland 15y ago
      Well, good luck with the "similarity" argument when it comes to fonts. We are, after all, talking about letter forms. Within the sans-serif family, the degree of similarity has a lot to do with how much attention you pay to fonts and typography in general. Keep in mind that to some people (who probably don't care about cars) a Ford Fusion and VW Jetta look pretty similar. The same rules apply here. Similarity is in the eye of the beholder unless you're talking about some quantifiable metric.