8 ms·

Ask yourself - why is Google actively trying to become a major provider of webfonts? They are hiring type designers left and right and pouring money into creat

Ask yourself - why is Google actively trying to become a major provider of webfonts? They are hiring type designers left and right and pouring money into creating a wide variety fonts - both original and knock-offs. Fonts that then they are offering for free. The only connection between the webfont and Google's core business is the fact that a Google-hosted version of former needs to be embedded in one's website in order to be used. So, they are doing this - at least in part - in order to expand their tracking capabilities. It's one thing when one joins G+ and decides to share most of his/her online life with Google. And it's another thing to embed a piece of JS/CSS and to start tracking other people on Google's behalf. Google is effectively exploiting the greed and ignorance of the web designers to go after people who do not want to have anything with them. This is plain unethical, but nonetheless Google is very aggressively pursuing this direction. The same incidentally goes for Gmail. I was buying a piece of real estate not long ago, and the realtor was using Gmail. We are both in Canada. I told him that exchanging documents over an email was like sending faxes back and forth, but not forgetting to send a copy of each to some random US company (because it would make sending faxes free). Only then he realized that he was in violation of whatever privacy requirements his RE association had. The level of ignorance when it comes to online freebies is absolutely STAGGERING. Google knows that what they do online would've never flown in the real life, but they still merrily peddle their free services and constantly seek ways to go after those who don't want them. That's certainly not evil or bad. It is all "well integrated", so it must be benign. /rant

drivebyacct2 15y ago
I'm glad you ended it with rant, because this is the exact brand of FUD I was referring to. >The only connection between the webfont and Google's core business is the fact that a Google-hosted version of former needs to be embedded in one's website in order to be used. All of those fonts are freely downloadable. Nothing about them requires you to go through Google (and is in fact impossible due to how webfonts work). Further, do you have ANY evidence that G+ is tracking non-loged in users? Also, I'm pretty sure the privacy policy of... ANY webmail client (save for self or ISP hosted) is going to violate such a policy, and I still find it completely irrelevant in a discussion of Google being dangerous. Now they're dangerous because you didn't read the TOS?
- jrockway 15y ago
  I heard Google breaks into people's houses at night and steals any spare change the occupants have lying around. This makes sense because Google must maximize shareholder value, and spare change is money for the shareholders. Therefore, this accusation must be true. Next week: proof why Google enriches uranium and sells it to terrorists trying to build a dirty bomb. One reason: they would get money from doing so! Man that's evil!
- huhtenberg 15y ago
  > All of those fonts are freely downloadable In exactly one format. And in order for them to be properly served to different browsers, they need to come in at least 3 other formats. Doing offline conversion yields fonts that look noticeably different from those served by Google, so for all practical intents and purposes having these fonts available for download is useless. > Now they're dangerous because you didn't read the TOS? They are dangerous because the other guy didn't read the TOS. I read them and declined.
jrockway 15y ago
Google just doesn't behave like this. I've talked to many people that work there (and I will be one of them soon), and this is just not the culture. Google maintains webfonts because someone said, "hey, our products would be better if they didn't look like shit on certain machines". Someone else agreed and now they have their own fonts. (Part of Android's look-and-feel is based on fonts, too, so it makes sense that if you're going to hire designers to make their phone OS look nice, some fonts are going to get designed along with that. Fonts, icons, backgrounds, and UI layout are all the same thing.) Before this, Microsoft provided the standard web fonts. They made them very hard to install, and so Google stepped up to provide a standard set of fonts, free to use and modify. This isn't evil, it's just Google ensuring that people can use their products. Bad fonts means their sites look ugly, and ugly sites means users won't use them. That's the only motivation.
- myko 15y ago
  This is my experience as well, a friend of mine worked with the web fonts team and this matches the motivations he expressed to me regarding the project.
- huhtenberg 15y ago
  They have 393 fonts as of today. Don't you think it's a bit excessive for sprucing up their own products? Also, considering a milder version of "don't be evil" angle - they are effectively on a route to nuke paid online typeface services or render them economically unfeasible to a vast majority of foundries. A policy not very much unlike Microsoft's when they were undercutting superior products and pushing them off the market. With regards to the "just doesn't behave like this" - Google is not a charity. It might be a wealthy company, but even it needs a justification for spending hundreds of thousands if (not millions) on creating a font library. Do you seriously think "let's have fonts" is the justification enough for that? There has to be a bigger reason and a larger picture. The "culture" is a funny thing. It can be benign and ethical all the way through the organization with an exception of a single room where the lawful interception provisions are enforced. > That's the only motivation. Right.
  - 15y ago

drivebyacct2 15y ago

I'm glad you ended it with rant, because this is the exact brand of FUD I was referring to. >The only connection between the webfont and Google's core business is the fact that a Google-hosted version of former needs to be embedded in one's website in order to be used. All of those fonts are freely downloadable. Nothing about them requires you to go through Google (and is in fact impossible due to how webfonts work). Further, do you have ANY evidence that G+ is tracking non-loged in users? Also, I'm pretty sure the privacy policy of... ANY webmail client (save for self or ISP hosted) is going to violate such a policy, and I still find it completely irrelevant in a discussion of Google being dangerous. Now they're dangerous because you didn't read the TOS?

jrockway 15y ago
I heard Google breaks into people's houses at night and steals any spare change the occupants have lying around. This makes sense because Google must maximize shareholder value, and spare change is money for the shareholders. Therefore, this accusation must be true. Next week: proof why Google enriches uranium and sells it to terrorists trying to build a dirty bomb. One reason: they would get money from doing so! Man that's evil!
huhtenberg 15y ago
> All of those fonts are freely downloadable In exactly one format. And in order for them to be properly served to different browsers, they need to come in at least 3 other formats. Doing offline conversion yields fonts that look noticeably different from those served by Google, so for all practical intents and purposes having these fonts available for download is useless. > Now they're dangerous because you didn't read the TOS? They are dangerous because the other guy didn't read the TOS. I read them and declined.

jrockway 15y ago

Google just doesn't behave like this. I've talked to many people that work there (and I will be one of them soon), and this is just not the culture. Google maintains webfonts because someone said, "hey, our products would be better if they didn't look like shit on certain machines". Someone else agreed and now they have their own fonts. (Part of Android's look-and-feel is based on fonts, too, so it makes sense that if you're going to hire designers to make their phone OS look nice, some fonts are going to get designed along with that. Fonts, icons, backgrounds, and UI layout are all the same thing.) Before this, Microsoft provided the standard web fonts. They made them very hard to install, and so Google stepped up to provide a standard set of fonts, free to use and modify. This isn't evil, it's just Google ensuring that people can use their products. Bad fonts means their sites look ugly, and ugly sites means users won't use them. That's the only motivation.

myko 15y ago
This is my experience as well, a friend of mine worked with the web fonts team and this matches the motivations he expressed to me regarding the project.
huhtenberg 15y ago
They have 393 fonts as of today. Don't you think it's a bit excessive for sprucing up their own products? Also, considering a milder version of "don't be evil" angle - they are effectively on a route to nuke paid online typeface services or render them economically unfeasible to a vast majority of foundries. A policy not very much unlike Microsoft's when they were undercutting superior products and pushing them off the market. With regards to the "just doesn't behave like this" - Google is not a charity. It might be a wealthy company, but even it needs a justification for spending hundreds of thousands if (not millions) on creating a font library. Do you seriously think "let's have fonts" is the justification enough for that? There has to be a bigger reason and a larger picture. The "culture" is a funny thing. It can be benign and ethical all the way through the organization with an exception of a single room where the lawful interception provisions are enforced. > That's the only motivation. Right.
- 15y ago