| ▲ | gralab a day ago |
| Waste of time and money on their part. There are more than enough typefaces in this world that look just like this one. |
|
| ▲ | t098i3 a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| According to their website this saved them a lot of money, plus they also made a documentary about making the font which is content for Nebula. |
| |
| ▲ | celsoazevedo a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Where did the savings come from? Maybe they were licensing a paid font? I doubt saved them more money than using a free font. | | |
| ▲ | cleech a day ago | parent | next [-] | | They were licensing Whitney SSm, they switched to a Source Sans derived typeface to save those costs but forked and adjusted it to more closely match Whitney SSm to minimize brand disruption. | |
| ▲ | t098i3 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | In the documentary video, their CCO explained if they used a different existing font they would have had to rework a lot of their media for the different font metrics, while making their own allowed them to have a drop-in replacement. |
| |
| ▲ | ChrisRR 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Saved them money on licensing their existing font, so why didn't they just move to another cheaper or free font? | | |
| ▲ | t098i3 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Because those fonts have different metrics, so they wouldn't have been drop-in replacements, they would have had to re-do all of their branded media. Loose programming analogy: The free replacements had a slightly different "API" (metrics) that would have required adjusting hundreds or thousands of "call sites" (media using the font), so instead they made their own "API-compatible" (metrically compatible) replacement that dropped straight in. This is all covered in the documentary short about the font. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | panja 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| We're apes on a spinning rock... Time and money are both made up, Let the people enjoy their font lol |
|
| ▲ | petesergeant a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I just bought a Nebula subscription, and hadn't heard of it before, so there's some value there |
| |
| ▲ | gralab a day ago | parent [-] | | Then this PR stunt worked I suppose. I still see no need to create yet another derivative sans-serif typeface. Especially for an online streaming service of all things. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | etchalon a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| "Why bother doing something original when there's something generic that's good enough" is certainly one way to approach things. |
| |
| ▲ | gralab a day ago | parent [-] | | No. You know that's not what I'm saying. There are many other very respectable typefaces available that they could have used. This one, while it may be custom made, *looks* generic. If I never saw this post, I would have zero clue they made it in-house. This is a PR stunt to get attention on sites like this. | | |
| ▲ | etchalon a day ago | parent | next [-] | | There are so very, very many things you're missing here. | | |
| ▲ | gralab a day ago | parent [-] | | Explain. | | |
| ▲ | t098i3 a day ago | parent [-] | | In the documentary video, their CCO explained if they used a different existing font they would have had to rework a lot of their media for the different font metrics, while making their own allowed them to have a drop-in replacement. |
|
| |
| ▲ | lirolero a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | ok boomer |
|
|
