zlacker

>>todsac+(OP)
Is this the wrong time to rant about font licensing though? I’ve always bought and paid for fonts, but as I’ve gradually transitioned to mobile app development, I one day realized that all the fonts I bought for print are now worthless to me.

These crazy outdated licenses that let you print as many magazines or books you want forever, for a one-time price. But if your hobby is making apps, then suddenly the same font will cost you 50 times more - for a single year.

I guess these font sellers imagine there’s still some app boom - a Klondike rush with developers bathing in dollars. Maybe if their licenses were more realistic, piracy would be less of a problem.

>>phony-+X3
There is maybe nothing in the entire world that I am less sympathetic towards than the cause of font piracy / font liberation. You have perfectly good --- in fact, historically excellent --- fonts loaded by default for free on any computer you buy today. Arguing for the oppression of font licenses is, to me, like arguing about how much it costs to buy something at Hermès. Just don't shop at Hermès.

>>tptace+He
Hermes doesn't forbid you from wearing your watch or charge 10x more for you to wear it while playing a mobile game.

I think a lot of the anger is more about the complexity and price discrimination than the absolute price.

>>Alchem+Tm
If Hermès did forbid me from carrying my (hypothetical) wallet more than 3 times a week, I simply would not buy that wallet. It would not become a moral crusade.

>>tptace+xF
But they'd deserve to be mocked in public. Complaining about something is usually not an attempt to make a moral crusade.

>>Dylan1+6M
Why? Everybody can just not buy the wallet if they care about this term of use. Who's being harmed?

This isn't nitpicking. At some point you're really effectively just arguing that there should be a ceiling on what you can charge for a typeface. That's not an argument that respects the art and craft of type design; it's one that privileges convenience.

>>tptace+YM
> Why? Everybody can just not buy the wallet if they care about this term of use. Who's being harmed?

Either because it's ridiculous and fun to laugh at, or to scare other companies off the idea, or both.

It being a luxury product that people can avoid is not a reason to keep my mouth shut.

> At some point you're really effectively just arguing that there should be a ceiling on what you can charge for a typeface. That's not an argument that respects the art and craft of type design; it's one that privileges convenience.

Okay, to switch back to typefaces, I don't get the impression they're complaining about the high end, I get the impression they're complaining about the average.

And if an entire class of product suddenly becomes luxury with onerous terms... that sucks! Do complain! It was working fine before!

>>Dylan1+bN
But that clearly isn't happening. You have never had more access to high-end typefaces than you do today. What people are mad about is the licensing attached to --- literally --- the Hermès of type design. To get higher-level than the targets of these complaints you have to get into bespoke design.

This came up earlier in the thread, and I kept someone else on the hook on this: I honestly think that it would be a good thing for the world if font licensing got more onerous, not less. Type design is a very difficult field to make a living in, and the world could use more of it. The social cost of making high-end type more expensive is negative, not positive.

>>tptace+BN
> What people are mad about is the licensing attached to --- literally --- the Hermès of type design.

Hmm, okay. If that's true then OP is just wrong.

The problem is this argument wasn't clear from your initial comment. You claimed that there were plenty of excellent free options, while they claimed that the market had generally gone to very onerous pricing. Both of those can be true at the same time.

But if most of the market hasn't done that, and they're only looking at the top, then okay they're wrong.