ADOBE, WHAT HAPPENED? OTs released without OSFs

[muzzer]

T Bones: Sorry to dissapoint you mate, but is a photo of old Chopper Reid, an Aussie hero! I find him bloody funny, but nothing to do with typefaces!!

Do you feel better now Mondo? Had a good rant and got it all out of your system?? Maybe you could just take it easy and have a beer or two with your mates. it might be better to "put things in perspective" as me dear old mum would say. You're acting like its a scandal or something.

Muzz

[TBiddy]

John, I think part of the problem is although I think your complaint is valid— how you choose to convey your points are often a bit extreme. Instead of accusations, perhaps inquire about why this exists, instead of going on a tirade. Shock tactics often work to get attention, but once you've gotten the attention the tactics can be called into question.

On the other hand, while it is the buyer's responsibility, to investigate the features in large font packages...what is included with each family can also be misleading. In addition to going through a line item on every font in a package (which can number in thousands) the user is also expected to check every feature associated with every single font in a package? Let's get real people, spending thousands of dollars on a font package and finding a surprise like this might get you a little miffed. No disrespect to the people who worked hard on putting packages like this together— but we can't forget about the consumer, this can be considered misleading.

[Thomas Phinney]

Of course I wish we had all those extra goodies in the OpenType versions of the third-party licensed typefaces in our library. And I can understand some folks' frustration at the face that those goodies existed (if not ever in Adobe's type library) but were not included in Adobe's OpenType versions of the fonts.

It might help people to rewind the clock to round about late 2001, when Adobe was doing planning to convert its entire library to OpenType.

It was clear to us then that the rest of the type industry needed a indication of commitment from Adobe, that this OpenType thing was more than just a flirtation. Converting our entire type library to OpenType seemed like the strongest measure of that (along with increased OpenType support in our applications, which we were also working on at that time).

My take is that negotiating new contracts with Linotype and Monotype/ITC, and then integrating additional materials, would have delayed things a couple of years if it was even successful.

I can't know for sure, but I wouldn't want to bet either way on whether Lino and Mono would have agreed at the time. Heck, Linotype hasn't even given Adobe the rights to resell any of the fancy new OpenType fonts they've made over the last few years. Clearly they feel there is value in keeping some goodies to themselves.

But even if it had been a viable option, delaying our OpenType conversion for, say, two years to incorporate more goodies would not have been a wise move, IMO. In those first few years of OpenType it was not a foregone conclusion that OpenType would become the new standard and other type foundries would flock to it. Had we taken too long to get our library converted, it would have raised serious questions about commitment to the format, and quite possibly cost us the momentum we needed - I'm not sure we would have reached "escape velocity" with that delay.

At *best*, I believe it would have slowed the rest of the industry's conversion to OpenType by about two years as well. I can imagine us being in this alternate universe, wherein QuarkXPress 7 doesn't have any OpenType layout support, and the rest of the type foundries would be now at the point they were at two years ago - and that's my *best* outcome.

If we'd had to tell Adobe's own applications that we wouldn't have a converted font library until 2005, I don't know if we'd have gotten their full buy-in when we did, either. Being able to promise that the fonts were coming and quickly was an important part of why our own applications bought into the feature support. So at worst, OpenType might have been relegated to the same status as AAT or multiple masters... ack.

That's all speculation, of course. That being said, I've watched this very carefully from the inside for 9.5 years now, and have been involved in a lot of discussions about OpenType support with our own applications, third parties, and OS vendors over the years.

So, I wish that we had more typographic goodies in the third party fonts, but even if we could revisit that decision, I don't know that I for one would be arguing for us to so it differently.

Cheers,

T

Thomas Phinney
Product Manager
Fonts & Global Typography
Adobe Systems

[Thomas Phinney]

Oh, and as a side note, one can accuse people of whatever you like, but calling the type group at Adobe lazy is just plain hogwash. You have no idea how hard this team works, and how many hours a week they put in.

I was down in San Jose Monday through Wednesday last week. I vividly remember sticking my head out of my borrowed office at about 6:30 or 7 one evening as I started to think about dinnertime. The majority of the entire group was still in their offices, cranking away.

And this is nothing compared to the hours people were putting in during the library conversion....

Cheers,

T

[twardoch]

Mondo,

I think you should understand a simple thing: it was not a matter of Adobe "collaborating" with Linotype, Monotype or ITC. My guess is that when Adobe released the "Std" versions of the Linotype, Monotype and ITC fonts, the LinoMonoITC conglomerate (as it is now) were interested in releasing "Pro" versions of these faces later. So it was quite obvious that neither Linotype nor Monotype/ITC were particularly fond of giving the data to Adobe on a "good will" basis. Also, adding new glyphs requires new kerning etc. With the sheer number of typefaces in the Adobe Type Library, this would surely delay the production considerably.

But there is a simple key to the naming in the Adobe Type Library. "Std" and "Pro". You can simply assume that the Adobe "Std" fonts are simply a sum of the previously existing Adobe Type 1 fonts while the "Pro" fonts have been reworked and expanded.

The Plantin Type 1 versions with OsF you're referring to were the Monotype versions, not the Adobe versions, as far as I can tell.

A.

[Miss Tiffany]

Figuring out what is available in a type family isn't that difficult. Yes, some sites do not offer enough information. However, if you know what it is that you need, why is it so difficult to find out. Most foundries can be reached by phone or e-mail, or even here on Typophile.

If you took the time to look on the pages at Adobe you'd notice they tell you right there on the page what you are getting with the font. A little comparison can go a long way.

Exhibit A: Plantin STD

Exhibit B: Garamond Premier Pro

[muzzer]

I wonder if mondo will have the balls to say sorry.

Muzz

[dezcom]

Mostly I wonder who the rest of "we" is?

ChrisL

[TBiddy]

Figuring out what is available in a type family isn’t that difficult. Yes, some sites do not offer enough information. However, if you know what it is that you need, why is it so difficult to find out.

Tiff, I think it is often more difficult than it needs to be. While your example is an "ideal" situation, if you're starting from scratch building a type library from the ground up and you need for example ALL of the classics— line item searching takes a long time. Time you may not have when you've got a lot of clients and a lot of work piling up.

Example. I did some research to get the most cost effective package(s) to get the company I work for up and running. I found a few fonts in the package were bits and pieces of complete families. Huh? What am I going to do with just the bold weights of some well known families? A consumer can feel like (at least I do) that if I can't have it all there...don't give it to me at all.

It's like buying a bicycle and finding out there's no wheels in the box. I'm not saying I'm not partially at fault— but buying font bundles can get a little tricky.

[Miss Tiffany]

I guess I am idealizing, I'm sorry for that Terry. Yes, this example I've posted above is probably a best case scenario.

Perhaps this is the downside of buying (in) bundles. That being you might miss something that you would have caught had you only been licensing a single family.

I suppose my reaction comes from my own experiences. That's not to say I haven't had my own fiasco. I've licensed a large family after realizing (remembering) that it was bundled with the software. (Long store, don't ask.)

But I think, perhaps, that when you are buying in bundles it is enough of an investment that someone should be involving the foundry more. Telling them exactly what your needs/hopes are. It sounds like your situation was rushed, that is unforunate.

[nicholasgross]

Muzz,

I wouldn't go so far as to call the 'ol chop chop an aussie hero...

--N

[mondoB]

Many thanks to Thomas for an illuminating post. Launching OpenType was a
high-wire act, for which Adobe deserves all kinds of credit. But we also see
this work is far from finished. The initiative for transforming type
classics into full-glyph OpenType has passed to others, notably Monotype and
ITC. That's where the OT action is now: the new issues at fonts.com and
itcfonts.com.

I voiced my complaint on behalf of the many customers who spent thousands on
Adobe's complete OpenType library expecting to enjoy a new world of options
across the board. Then, in a dismaying number of faces, they got nothing of
the sort. For quite a few, literally the only new thing was the Euro
symbol. Those who still wanted full-glyph versions of faces left incomplete by Adobe now had to BUY THEM AGAIN elsewhere, if they could. For these burned customers, my complaint would seem understated.

[twardoch]

Mondo,

I'm not sure why it is so that you or other customers believed that the new OpenType library contains something that it doesn't contain. I remember Adobe advertising the OpenType library as offering a cross-platform font solution (the same font file for different operating systems), easier access to various extra glyphs such as ligatures, Unicode compatibility, the presence of the euro character, and -- for the "Pro" fonts -- expanded character sets. This actually already accounts for a "new world of options".

However, if some computer magazine journalist or whoever else this might be made you or some other customers that "everything is new" in the Adobe OpenType library, I'd seriously go and complain to that very journalist or the other person.

Otherwise, I would be interested to hear how you arrived at that very "expectation" that you describe. I don't recollect hearing anybody at Adobe lying about the contents of the Std fonts -- therefore I'd be curious to know.

Best,
Adam

[mondoB]

Adam, if you go to their website sales copy for Adobe Font Folio OpenType edition, under Key Benefits of buying the CD, it promises:

--Revive fine typography with expanded glyph sets containing swashes, small caps, and old-style figures...

--Take advantage of multiple font packages with merged character sets, allowing easy access to expert set characters — such as small capitals and old-style figures — when using OpenType savvy applications...

Nowhere on that page does it say "except for families we could not complete this way" or words to that effect. The customer finds that out the hard way. Basically Adobe's response to this complaint comes down to "you should have read the fine print" or rather checked out each font or family's glyph schedule. But as Terry Biddle said above, this is completely impractical--there are "more than 2,200 fonts."

If you read the Key Benefits, you will see that a customer would be easily misled into thinking full glyphs are promised across the board. I've heard exactly this lament from plenty of NYC type buyers who are usually tough customers. The helpful thing would be for Adobe to list faces/families by their glyph coverage in one place; nothing of the sort appears in the sales section now. Thomas, in his post above, admits the validity of our complaint while pleading extenuating circumstances. For those burned, that's very cold comfort, and for the retailer, worse PR.

[Nick Shinn]

John, I sympathize -- up to a point.
I think your expectations have been fluffed by Adobe's largesse, which has also made them somewhat indiscriminate.
So it's good that you have raised this issue, so that reality can set in.
The fact is, as the foot soldiers are pointing out, OpenType is a huge job of work.
With the bernefits it offers also comes the responsibility, and the onus, for end users to become more informed about the differences between font features -- better typographers, even. Because there is no longer a standard font format, if there ever was. Even with Adobe's offerings, which do a good job of being consistent, there are still internal discrepencies, such as the Adobe Caslon Pro Small Caps issue (when you select small caps in InDesign, you get vrai for the Roman, but faux for the Italic). I mention this not to castigate Adobe, but to draw a line that is hopefully helpful.

Now mix into the equation the different feature sets that independent foundries will implement in their OpenType fonts, and I think what will emerge is a cultural environment where the expertise of typographers will come to the fore, in discriminating between not just the aesthetic quality of typefaces and fonts, but also their functional capabilites, based on their differing feature sets. So mass bundling won't be an easy option, for seller or buyer.

[mondoB]

Thanks Nick...you second a point I made, that we type lovers have to become very tough type shoppers. As I mentioned, the OT initiative has passed to other sources, like Monotype and ITC. From ITC, at long last, we can now get Berkeley Oldstyle with the oldstyle figures they had originally, pre-Postscript. And who ever thought we would see oldstyle figures for ITC Franklin Gothic? These options have emerged only in the past year. And, after the period of exclusivity I presume the licensors want, Adobe could acquire these completed versions in place of the incomplete versions they sell now.

[twardoch]

Mondo,

if I were to buy a library of 2,200 fonts, I'd seriously ask myself "did they actually extend all of those 2,200 fonts with additional glyphs"? Now, I agree, this skepticism would mean that the potential buyer knew the original Type 1 offerings of Adobe (which often were without OsF). But I don't see how a reasonable buyer should be disappointed by finding out that the 2,200 fonts he got are not "all noo" ("noo" being a New York pronunciation of "new", btw ;)

This really almost boils down to the popular belief that fonts grow on trees. The fact is that now, due to OpenType, companies such as Linotype, Monotype, ITC start extending their fonts with additional glyphs -- but this is done *one family at a time*. Anybody who even remotely understands type design would realize that the Adobe OpenType library could not realistically be extended in their entirety.

I simply cannot agree that it is fair to call Adobe "lazy".

Fortunately enough, the naming key ("Std" vs. "Pro") should be a good indication on what is going on.

[mondoB]

"the naming key ('Std' vs. 'Pro') should be a good indication on what is going on."

except it isn't. "Std" means a lot of things, discoverable only by researching each font's glyph schedule. Monotype Dante and Bembo "Std" have been converted impeccably, with full glyph coverage and beautiful, easily accessed oldstyle figures, but Monotype Photina Std contains no new glyphs at all, just the Euro symbol.

[Christopher Slye]

Monotype Photina Std contains no new glyphs at all, just the euro symbol, even though the type one version had expert fonts with glyphs.

Adobe did not sell any Type 1 expert fonts for Photina. Adobe converted its library from Type 1 to OpenType, and it's safe to say that if it's a non-Adobe font, the OpenType-format font has the same glyphs as the Type 1 font(s) (aside from some marginal additions like Euro). I know of no cases where anything was removed.

At Adobe, the name "Pro" means that the character set supports Central European languages. Anything else is "Std". Other font vendors have chosen to use those suffixes and assign different meanings -- but Adobe was the first to use them as far as I know.

Whether Adobe was lazy or just impatient, sweeping the incomplete into the same bundle with the complete, we don’t know and they’re not saying ...

The concept could not have been more simple: convert our Type 1 font library into OpenType format. I think Thomas's description of the process and decisions and reasoning was detailed and accurate. (Thanks, Thomas!)

[mondoB]

Thanks Chris...I meant to cite Plantin as carrying expert fonts in type one; Photina, as you say, did not. According to the Precision Type Font Reference Guide Version 5.0 (1995), p. 305, Monotype Plantin 1 and 2 expert sets were offered by Adobe in type one, which makes their absence in Adobe's OT quite puzzling.

[Christopher Slye]

Hmm, I see that. It looks like Precision Type's choice of format is misleading there, since they have their foundry codes next to the family name and don't seem to have a way to specify the extent of each particular foundry's offering. Despite what the PT guide (unfortunately) implies, Adobe never had the Type 1 Plantin expert fonts in its library.

[mondoB]

I just dug up my old type one Plantin Expert fonts, and under the screen fonts suitcase file "more info" in OSX it says they carry a 1991 copyright from Adobe. So I must have acquired them from Adobe. But thank you for checking at your end. Maybe Adobe somehow lost the rights to the expert sets after the mid-90s and before OT conversions, because in your Adobe type library reference book dated Oct. 2000, they don't appear under Plantin, although other Monotypes still had their expert sets. A puzzle.

[Christopher Slye]

That's really weird. I have the Adobe 1991 type catalog here and there are no expert Plantin fonts listed there. (The 1990 Adobe catalog doesn't list any Plantin, so Adobe must have been added just after.)

I'll ask around the office.

[mondoB]

...and a "creation" date of June 1992, presumably followed by release. These are the Adobe-copyrighted Plantin expert fonts I've been using ever since. I tried to upload a screen snap of the file data, but it wouldn't take.

[Thomas Phinney]

Thanks to whoever renamed the thread to a less offensive title.

Ah, David Lemon was good enough to explain it to us. Monotype licensed Adobe's Type 1 font production tools to produce their own Type 1 versions of their fonts around 1991, and that resulted in Adobe copyrights in the font files.

Most of those same fonts were later licensed to Adobe and rebuilt by Adobe to our technical standards, but Plantin Expert was not among them. I can't say why.

But the rule of thumb is still simple: we converted everything that we had the rights to convert from Type 1 to OpenType, merging all supplemental fonts that were available to us at the time. We continue to sell the Type 1 versions, although they're a little harder to find on our Web site. So you can tell we didn't have Plantin Expert by seeing that we don't have it now. Go to the appropriate page for Plantin Std and click on the "More Info" tab at lower right, and you can find the Type 1 fonts listed.

Of course, if you want to know what's in the OpenType font, all you have to do is look at the cyan blue icons right on the main page for each font or family. Or you can download the PDF that shows every glyph in the font. It's not like we make it hard.

Cheers,

T