zlacker

I think the problem is more that the costs feel exorbitant with respect to both the perceived effort and utility. 75$ is half a year of Netflix - a product clearly born of extensive multi-disciplinary effort - which can't but feel excessive given that the marginal utility of a font is just so low.

I guess I could summarize as saying that an expensive[0] font just isn't, or more strongly, can't be interesting.[1]

[0]More than a cup of coffee, or so. [1]For personal use, marginal benefits scale differently on e.g. a billboard

>>therei+(OP)
Netflix is entertainment, typefaces have a LOT more utility in my life. Maybe I'm weird because I regularly purchase typefaces but $75 is a STEAL. Holy shit.

The commercial license for this is also a steal.

Seems like on here, free typefaces are desired but a lot of these free typefaces are released by multi-million dollar corporations...they have someone on payroll to work on them.

I welcome indie typographers.

>>NetOpW+Ha
I totally get why they charge, and for what they do - can't blame anyone for not working for free - I just genuinely can't picture a value proposition in the product commiserate with the effort.

At least personally, I find fonts are something that normalize very quickly. If I change the font on my text editor, I'd notice for a day or so but then it would cease to be 'a font' and go back to being 'words on screen'. I've only really noticed 'displeasure' at a working font[1] when I've got two machines and the settings wind up desynced so one doesn't look like 'how it's supposed to' according to my brain.

[0]e.g. if Hacker News changed its font I really might not notice.

[1]Exempting crap like Papyrus

>>therei+(OP)
> given that the marginal utility of a font is just so low.

Then... don't buy it? I mean, it's not like there aren't hundreds of other fonts to choose from, many of which are free.