Adobe acquires Typekit(blog.typekit.com)
blog.typekit.com
Adobe acquires Typekit
http://blog.typekit.com/2011/10/03/adobe-acquires-typekit/
18 comments
I agree with the parent...when I saw this headline, I immediately thought of this blog: http://adobegripes.tumblr.com/.
Let's hope so. I would like Typekit to be integrated better with Adobe products, but not at the expense of the core Typekit service.
I liked Typekit. I hope Adobe won't run it into the ground, like the rest of the companies they've acquired.
I agree. And hopefully won't require some ugly software in order to use it.
To be fair (and I have a tough time of it with Adobe), a lot of their suite was acquired. They seem to be able to transition products fairly well for a large company.
From the email I just got (I'm a paying customer):
""" If you’re one of our customers, this announcement means things will only get better. Typekit will remain a standalone product, as well as become a vital part of Adobe’s Creative Cloud. Our team will stay together, and we’re excited to start working on even easier ways to integrate web fonts into your workflow. """
They're saying all the right things: standalone product, team staying together, etc, sure hope so.
""" If you’re one of our customers, this announcement means things will only get better. Typekit will remain a standalone product, as well as become a vital part of Adobe’s Creative Cloud. Our team will stay together, and we’re excited to start working on even easier ways to integrate web fonts into your workflow. """
They're saying all the right things: standalone product, team staying together, etc, sure hope so.
> even easier ways to integrate
Good, a pure CSS then. Like all other font services these days.
Good, a pure CSS then. Like all other font services these days.
I, for one, am looking forward to Adobe Air-powered Typekit Installation packages containing native OSX installers that spit out HTML snippets.
From a historical perspective, this certainly feels like a logical, organic acquisition for both Typekit and Adobe. But it's disappointing that they didn't exit into the arms of Google. Google Web Fonts could have used the help and passion. They apparently danced, but unfortunately didn't leave the ball together:
http://code.google.com/apis/webfonts/docs/webfont_loader.htm...
http://blog.typekit.com/2010/05/19/typekit-and-google/
It's unlikely this will result in the kind of innovation or even disruption that a Google/Typekit union could have provided.
Edit: Removed unnecessarily negative language.
http://code.google.com/apis/webfonts/docs/webfont_loader.htm...
http://blog.typekit.com/2010/05/19/typekit-and-google/
It's unlikely this will result in the kind of innovation or even disruption that a Google/Typekit union could have provided.
Edit: Removed unnecessarily negative language.
If you're in the UK (or, heck, outside of the US), start saving up for when the standard Adobe currency conversion rates of $1 = £2 come into action ;-)
Price will increase, service will decrease. I'm happy for those at Typekit who cashed out, too bad for the users...
It's interesting to see Typekit guys cashing out. I bet the price was pretty solid.
I remember, when I first tried their service in 2009, the first impression was wow, it works!. Not only in technological aspect. It felt that the Startup worked. The timing and niche instantly became to be "naturally clear". Two years passed and we see here a nice cash out.
Meanwhile: let's step up and do something wow, it works. Stripe has started doing it in 2011. And probably many more.
I love Typekit. I think Adobe knows better than to mess with the product itself. However the pricing model is pretty low by Adobe standards. I hope that doesn't change.
Typekit is an excellent service for the price, but the main reason I've remained a committed customer and evangelist is their constant drive to improve. I love that they've worked so hard to improve font rendering on Windows (which I'm sure is a huge pain in the ass) and that they encourage foundries to hint their fonts (which improves rendering for everyone). I hope that this acquisition won't hinder that kind of initiative.
Like everyone else, I'm happy for the founders. But as a Typekit customer, I was pretty disappointed to see their email announcement about this today.
They were doing well and were on to something big - why did they have to sell now? I love their product, but they still have such a long way to go and so much they could improve on. It just seems so early and unnecessary.
They were doing well and were on to something big - why did they have to sell now? I love their product, but they still have such a long way to go and so much they could improve on. It just seems so early and unnecessary.
Maybe if the chorus rises loud enough, Adobe management will get a clue and not ruin Typekit.
TypeKit served a purpose, but cross-browser support for @font-face has largely obsoleted them.
Latest versions of Safari and Firefox and Google Chrome support @font-face and Opera is planning to support it soon.
Latest versions of Safari and Firefox and Google Chrome support @font-face and Opera is planning to support it soon.
I have tried to use @font-face on a large website where all the users don't have up to date. All was just getting emails about old versions of safari crashing, ipads crashing chrome crashing etc.
I agree with you TypeKit wont be useful forever but for now it's the best solution I have found.
YMMV but have you tried using this approach:
http://www.fontspring.com/blog/further-hardening-of-the-bull...
We use the above with good results (supports IE6-9, FF, Safari, Android, iOS, Chrome and Opera).
www.airbus.com (a large site) also uses this technique (or at least they did when I last looked).
http://www.fontspring.com/blog/further-hardening-of-the-bull...
We use the above with good results (supports IE6-9, FF, Safari, Android, iOS, Chrome and Opera).
www.airbus.com (a large site) also uses this technique (or at least they did when I last looked).
Just got the $49.99/year plan, I've been considering it and I figure if Adobe are going to raise prices they'll hopefully let older customers stick to their original pricing... so maybe I got a good deal.
[deleted]
Now that Adobe has bought Typekit I anticipate an HTML5 version of Adobe Bridge® bundled with Adobe® Typekit® Master Collection® 6.0…
Typekit is a funny concept to me. While I can respect and admire their ability to build a successful company, I think the blog post shows just how rose-tinted are the spectacles worn by these font services:
I know there's no way I could ever use their services with any of the clients I've had, because you simply can't factor in an ongoing cost that is unrestricted and controlled by a third party when giving a fixed price quote for most clients. However, I've spent significant amounts of my own and various companies' money to buy good quality fonts for other uses, and would surely have done so for web fonts as well if anyone was willing to take my money on that basis.
Herein lies the fundamental problem with the whole web-font-as-service concept: at body sizes, there is rarely enough difference at typical screen resolutions to justify a change from the old favourites (and such changes are usually ill-advised anyway), while for one-off uses like headings and pull quotes where distinctive fonts can make a worthwhile impact, the web design community was managing just fine already.
As higher resolution screens become the norm, perhaps this will change, just as tiny pixel-drawn icons are giving way to scalable vector-based artwork (but it really shows on smaller or lower-resolution screens where you do still want a 16x16 or 32x32 icon and the vectors haven't been carefully crafted to fit pixel-perfect at that kind of scale). Even then, it's hard to see how you can justify paying a substantial amount of cash every month to use fonts on web sites, when no other on-line stock resources work that way and fonts for other uses don't work that way either.
Still, I wish them well, if only for the benefit of those users who can fit in with their business model and do find it worthwhile. I don't share the pessimism of some here about the Adobe takeover, because one of the few things Adobe has pretty much always done well both technically and in terms of management/legal stuff is fonts.
Second, we could innovate on the business side as well.
We could sell fonts as a service, and use a subscription
model to eliminate Byzantine licensing and usage issues.
I know there's no way I could ever use their services with any of the clients I've had, because you simply can't factor in an ongoing cost that is unrestricted and controlled by a third party when giving a fixed price quote for most clients. However, I've spent significant amounts of my own and various companies' money to buy good quality fonts for other uses, and would surely have done so for web fonts as well if anyone was willing to take my money on that basis.
Few sites used web fonts when we got started;
today, new sites seldom launch without them.
Typekit now serves nearly three billion fonts
per month on over one million different sites,
including some of the most recognized brands
on the web.
From the start, our vision has been to make
the web more beautiful, readable, and fast.
Herein lies the fundamental problem with the whole web-font-as-service concept: at body sizes, there is rarely enough difference at typical screen resolutions to justify a change from the old favourites (and such changes are usually ill-advised anyway), while for one-off uses like headings and pull quotes where distinctive fonts can make a worthwhile impact, the web design community was managing just fine already.
As higher resolution screens become the norm, perhaps this will change, just as tiny pixel-drawn icons are giving way to scalable vector-based artwork (but it really shows on smaller or lower-resolution screens where you do still want a 16x16 or 32x32 icon and the vectors haven't been carefully crafted to fit pixel-perfect at that kind of scale). Even then, it's hard to see how you can justify paying a substantial amount of cash every month to use fonts on web sites, when no other on-line stock resources work that way and fonts for other uses don't work that way either.
Still, I wish them well, if only for the benefit of those users who can fit in with their business model and do find it worthwhile. I don't share the pessimism of some here about the Adobe takeover, because one of the few things Adobe has pretty much always done well both technically and in terms of management/legal stuff is fonts.
[Disclaimer: My business licenses fonts via Typekit]
Blaming Typekit for bad design is an interesting choice. Might as well blame browsers for giving designers access to millions of terrible color choices via CSS while you're at it. Blame bad designers for not knowing how to use fonts.
The community was not doing a good job with custom fonts for headings, pull quotes, etc. @font-face works pretty well, but foundries clearly weren't willing to sell licenses for it the same way they do for print/commercial use. It's not a difficult thing to explain to clients - it's a recurring fee just like hosting, SSL certificates, and domain registration. It handles all cross-browser issues, saves bandwidth, and gives you, the designer, easy access to a rather large library of fonts at no cost to you. Clients that can't afford the $2-8/month probably can't afford good design to begin with.
If web fonts are too slow for you in all circumstances, how is Typekit any worse than a license from a foundry? Native fonts are great, and should be used extensively, but they really limit your options.
Blaming Typekit for bad design is an interesting choice. Might as well blame browsers for giving designers access to millions of terrible color choices via CSS while you're at it. Blame bad designers for not knowing how to use fonts.
The community was not doing a good job with custom fonts for headings, pull quotes, etc. @font-face works pretty well, but foundries clearly weren't willing to sell licenses for it the same way they do for print/commercial use. It's not a difficult thing to explain to clients - it's a recurring fee just like hosting, SSL certificates, and domain registration. It handles all cross-browser issues, saves bandwidth, and gives you, the designer, easy access to a rather large library of fonts at no cost to you. Clients that can't afford the $2-8/month probably can't afford good design to begin with.
If web fonts are too slow for you in all circumstances, how is Typekit any worse than a license from a foundry? Native fonts are great, and should be used extensively, but they really limit your options.
I'm not blaming Typekit for designers who don't know how to use fonts. I'm blaming Typekit for serving fonts that look terrible on many systems that aren't running the latest and greatest browsers and operating systems (i.e., most of the machines used to browse the web). Many of them don't look that great even on those newer systems either, certainly not rendering with the quality that you would expect from a pro font displayed in a native application running locally on the machine.
For a while shortly after these font-hosting services started going live, every trendy design blog out there started to look worse than it did before, and I couldn't figure out why. For a short time, I actually assumed I'd inadvertently messed up my ClearType settings, or downloaded a dubious update from Microsoft, or found another rendering bug in Firefox, or something along those lines. Then I started to notice these little "T" badges in the corner of the pages that didn't render properly, and discovered the hard way that hardly any web fonts were properly hinted for on-screen use, which is why they all looked horrible compared to things like Verdana and Arial/Helvetica.
To be fair, a few of them are better now. Still, Typekit's own site looks pretty bad on this computer (I've just checked) and the irony is that it's their custom fonts that render like something from the Windows 95 days, while the body text in Georgia looks as clean as usual. It's not exactly a great sales pitch when the part of your site using your technology looks obviously visibly worse than the part of your site using the tried and tested workhorse you're asking us to give up.
[Edit: Here's an example:
http://i.imgur.com/cEGNL.png
Notice that even at display size, the rendering of the heading text in Proxima Nova looks awful. Meanwhile, trusty Georgia even renders with decent italics at body text size.
And it looks that way on several systems here, from Firefox on Windows XP to Chrome on Windows 7, so it's nothing to do with ClearType rendering differences, the Firefox rendering problems with HarfBuzz, or any other such excuse.]
As I've said many times, the reality is that at today's typical screen resolutions, at body text sizes, there are only so many ways you can turn on the pixels that are going to work. We have had a few brilliantly designed fonts created specifically for that usage available to us for a long time. Anything that is supposed to replace them needs to look different enough to be worth the hassle and render at least as clearly, and most/all of the hosted web fonts currently fail to meet one or both of those criteria. I'm sorry if this is some sort of downvote-worthy regressive heresy, but I go by results and the screenshot does not lie.
For a while shortly after these font-hosting services started going live, every trendy design blog out there started to look worse than it did before, and I couldn't figure out why. For a short time, I actually assumed I'd inadvertently messed up my ClearType settings, or downloaded a dubious update from Microsoft, or found another rendering bug in Firefox, or something along those lines. Then I started to notice these little "T" badges in the corner of the pages that didn't render properly, and discovered the hard way that hardly any web fonts were properly hinted for on-screen use, which is why they all looked horrible compared to things like Verdana and Arial/Helvetica.
To be fair, a few of them are better now. Still, Typekit's own site looks pretty bad on this computer (I've just checked) and the irony is that it's their custom fonts that render like something from the Windows 95 days, while the body text in Georgia looks as clean as usual. It's not exactly a great sales pitch when the part of your site using your technology looks obviously visibly worse than the part of your site using the tried and tested workhorse you're asking us to give up.
[Edit: Here's an example:
http://i.imgur.com/cEGNL.png
Notice that even at display size, the rendering of the heading text in Proxima Nova looks awful. Meanwhile, trusty Georgia even renders with decent italics at body text size.
And it looks that way on several systems here, from Firefox on Windows XP to Chrome on Windows 7, so it's nothing to do with ClearType rendering differences, the Firefox rendering problems with HarfBuzz, or any other such excuse.]
As I've said many times, the reality is that at today's typical screen resolutions, at body text sizes, there are only so many ways you can turn on the pixels that are going to work. We have had a few brilliantly designed fonts created specifically for that usage available to us for a long time. Anything that is supposed to replace them needs to look different enough to be worth the hassle and render at least as clearly, and most/all of the hosted web fonts currently fail to meet one or both of those criteria. I'm sorry if this is some sort of downvote-worthy regressive heresy, but I go by results and the screenshot does not lie.
On one hand, I'm happy for Typekit team, if everything turns out the way they hope. Possible integration with Photoshop / DreamWeaver could help bring better fonts to the web, help them grow, invite more type foundries, and so on.
On the other hand, Adobe quite often ruin things they acquire, and that would be just terrible, because Typekit was by far the best service for web fonts. Google fonts are quite crappy, FontDeck doesn't have the best foundries, and Fonts.com is expensive, and their fonts are less optimized for the web.
So here's to the bright future of Typekit, in which the service remains great and inexpensive.