4 ms·

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 wri

by 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.
      - beej71 15y ago
        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. Well, you seem to think that basing a font on another is a ripoff, and that's the bit on which the parent poster is basing his assertion. Many of us feel it is not a ripoff. Helvetica, however popular, was not the first of its kind, and most average people wouldn't be able to tell it from Akzidenz-Grotesk, created some 60 years earlier. Almost every major foundry has a Helvetica clone. If this is a big deal, it was a big deal before the relatively minor addition of Roboto.
  - beej71 15y ago
    Gruber said he wouldn't call it a Helvetica rip-off. (Though, for the life of me, I can't imagine why he thinks Arial is a rip-off, and Roboto isn't.)
    - Steko 15y ago
      Because he didn't carefully compare them. Gruber this morning: "I was too kind last night. Roboto is a Helvetica rip-off. It’s Google’s Arial."
      - beej71 15y ago
        At least he's consistent. Now, what about Liberation Sans? And, more importantly, Nimbus Sans L?
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.

by Steko 15y ago

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.
    - beej71 15y ago
      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. Well, you seem to think that basing a font on another is a ripoff, and that's the bit on which the parent poster is basing his assertion. Many of us feel it is not a ripoff. Helvetica, however popular, was not the first of its kind, and most average people wouldn't be able to tell it from Akzidenz-Grotesk, created some 60 years earlier. Almost every major foundry has a Helvetica clone. If this is a big deal, it was a big deal before the relatively minor addition of Roboto.
- beej71 15y ago
  Gruber said he wouldn't call it a Helvetica rip-off. (Though, for the life of me, I can't imagine why he thinks Arial is a rip-off, and Roboto isn't.)
  - Steko 15y ago
    Because he didn't carefully compare them. Gruber this morning: "I was too kind last night. Roboto is a Helvetica rip-off. It’s Google’s Arial."
    - beej71 15y ago
      At least he's consistent. Now, what about Liberation Sans? And, more importantly, Nimbus Sans L?

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.