Fontdeck is retiring
kupfers
Posts: 259
Very sad news that Florian shared on Twitter this morning: http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=262832f6c05900ce22e8b14b6&id=847cdd319d
http://blog.fontdeck.com/post/133786333191/fontdeck-closure-support
Are webfont service deemed not needed anymore as most foundries offer fonts for self-hosting, or just not lucrative or worth the trouble enough given the super large players in the room?
http://blog.fontdeck.com/post/133786333191/fontdeck-closure-support
Are webfont service deemed not needed anymore as most foundries offer fonts for self-hosting, or just not lucrative or worth the trouble enough given the super large players in the room?
Tagged:
5
Comments
-
well, I'm relieved that Florian has not passed on, which is how I read this at first!
I started out renting our types via Fontdeck, but soon felt that with sales totaling just a few dollars per year, it made sense to drop it and license for self-hosting instead.
4 -
(Oh dear, right, I will rephrase)1
-
I may add two values to this thread:
An average of 47% web sites use self-hosted fonts.
For serviced-fonts 94% of web sites use Google Fonts, so TypeKit, Fonts.com and others are within a 6% usage ...5 -
Well, Webtype, Fonts.com, Typekit, and even Google are webfont-hosting services where the company running the service (Font Bureau, Monotype, Adobe, Google) each has some of its own IP on offer. While I guess that the percentage of Adobe-owned fonts being licensed via Typekit is less of Typekit’s total percentage than, say, Font Bureau fonts being licensed on Webtype, these services still seem to me to have more in common with each other than they all did with FontDeck.IndraKupferschmid said:Are webfont service deemed not needed anymore as most foundries offer fonts for self-hosting, or just not lucrative or worth the trouble enough given the super large players in the room?
What surprises me most, honestly, is not that FontDeck announced that it is shutting down, but that it was not purchased by another font manufacture, webfont service company, or tech company. That is the bet which I would have placed!
If you are wondering how lucrative it is sell licenses for hosted-webfonts vs. self-hosted-webfonts, perhaps you now have an answer.7 -
The majority of our clients license self-hosting. This is true especially for the larger companies, where most of the money is. It seems companies prefer to have the actual font files on their server.2
-
Is H&Co. an anomaly then? Or House Ind. hypothetically, once they launch their hosted service? If a company can leverage exclusivity paired with a hosted service, how does that change the hosted vs. self-hosted sales/usage argument?0
-
Most services offer webfonts for self-hosting but geared to and priced for large sites so they would be unnecessarily expensive for normal clients, hence them choosing the service?0
-
More info at: http://blog.fontdeck.com/post/133794978966/why-fontdeck-is-retiringHowever, since webfonts became a commercial viability in 2009 the landscape has changed. Professional web designers - which we count ourselves among - now demand and need more. More speed, more tailoring of fonts, case-by-case subsetting, specifying OpenType features, hinting only where necessary, WOFF2, flexible pricing options, and more besides. As a webfont service we felt it was incumbent upon us to be providing all this to our paying customers, and as web designers we felt this was the kind of service we should be receiving. This is where our decision to retire Fontdeck lay.
Fontdeck could tick along as it was, but without significant investment we wouldn’t be able to improve the infrastructure or the features of our service. Fontdeck would eventually stagnate as our well funded competition gradually improved their services. That’s not something we wanted to happen. As neither OmniTI nor Clearleft have the resources to take Fontdeck to the next level, we had no desire to traipse around the Valley with a begging bowl; instead we took the decision to retire Fontdeck rather than let it wither on the vine.
1 -
When I was forecasting web font market size and potential revenue about six years ago, I thought that the market for commercial hosted web font services might peak in 2014 or 2015. Seeing where the market is now, I would not be surprised if that came true; the growth is likely in self-hosted web fonts and free fonts from Google.1
-
As for why companies might prefer self-hosting, I’ll give an example of client I was working for that was licensing certain Adobe fonts from a web fonts service that closed last year, and when looking for alternatives they couldn’t find a single web fonts service that serve the same fonts without requiring JavaScript (which was an absolute requirement for them, they went very long way to not use any JavaScript on their web site). After lots of looking a round we found a service that provided self-hosting of these fonts and went for it, they are now sure as hell to not depend on a third party any more for something as basic as this. (Of course I would have liked to switch them to libre fonts, and they now do for new projects, but the choice of typefaces used have been picked years ago and they are unwilling to change it now).
1 -
I'd guess a lot of the self hosted web fonts are Google Font Directory fonts too - where self hosting is driven by a desire to be in control or maybe perhaps paranoia.1
-
As an independant webfont service, Fontdeck was not at all lucrative for me as a cofounder, but some foundries did do very well out of it (but not all, as Miles made clear).
Frankly we probably gave foundries too much of a cut, but we never really went into to make money or to 'exit' through a sale (although a buyer would have been welcome). We genuinely set it up so that we - as web designers - could get to use quality fonts legally and have the type designers and foundries rewarded appropriately. In that I'm happy we succeeded.
Fontdeck had 1000s of customers and a six-figure turnover but that was not enough to spin it off into proper separate company. So between Clearleft and OmniTI, we ran it on the side and eventually that became too much of a burden on our resources. That and I wanted the service to become much better than it was - to be the best webfont service, providing the kind of tools, service, discoverability that are lacking from all services. But investment was never going to be forthcoming (as a co-owner of Clearleft I agreed with that position) and so the inevitable had to happen.
Self-hosting, or rather direct sales from foundries, certainly was a competitor, but our numbers were still growing albeit slowly. And anyway I'm perfectly happy if foundries and type designers are making direct sales.10 -
SiDaniels: Looking at our data approx. 19% of self-hosted fonts are Google Fonts2
-
Lars Schwarz said:An average of 47% web sites use self-hosted fonts.
If it's the former, what percentage of all web sites use service-based fonts?
Either way, what percentage of all web sites use web fonts these days?
Thanks!0 -
Well, any company using Cambria and Calibri would need to retire... I'll leave now.
In all seriousness, it was probably a sketchy idea from the start. It's like trying to open a lemonade stand when there's a huge, popular lemonade store next to you that has stayed in the business for years before you. It's not going to work. You'll get 2-3 customers a day, but the lemonade stand will get 20 or more customers in half the time. The longer the thing has been around that you are trying to introduce a competitor, the worse the success rate. I've always prefered more familiar things myself. Another thing is that people are attracted to free things. Google Fonts is free, why pay for fonts? There's always Open Sans (popular) and fonts like Alegreya (relatively very high quality). I could go on... but I don't want to waste your time.
0 -
Rich, thanks for the additional info! And thanks for all your efforts to help web fonts take off!
Lars, would you be willing to publish those stats in a way they can be tracked over time? Might be good marketing for your license enforcement business1 -
Rich, you certainly inspired many of us to go forward despite the terrible standards, so, thanks, and good luck!2
-
Thomas Phinney said:Lars Schwarz said:An average of 47% web sites use self-hosted fonts.Dave Crossland said:
Lars, would you be willing to publish those stats in a way they can be tracked over time? Might be good marketing for your license enforcement business
Most web sites use web fonts because the template/theme it uses came with them or because people nowadays tend to use cloud based CMSs that also come with a preselection of web fonts.
Publishing these stats or trends over time would just show the obvious, that Google, TypeKit and Fonts.com dominate.
0 -
what percentage of all web sites use web fonts these days?
http://httparchive.org/trends.php has 482k URLs indexed, and suggests 57% of all web sites use web fonts these days.
1 -
Dave Crossland said:
what percentage of all web sites use web fonts these days?
http://httparchive.org/trends.php has 482k URLs indexed, and suggests 57% of all web sites use web fonts these days.2 -
And please, don't call it "all web sites". httparchive only crawls the Alexa Top 1 million, not "all"0
-
How many do you crawl, and what percentage of them are using web fonts as real web fonts and as icon fonts? Maybe we can use that proportion as a rough guide... eg, I guess a rough estimate for 'all' websites is that 50% are using web fonts as real web fonts.0
-
Most web sites use web fonts because the template/theme it uses came with them or because people nowadays tend to use cloud based CMSs that also come with a preselection of web fonts.
The answer it seems is that the majority are not actively choosing fonts from Google, they are having that choice made for them, which would explain the numbers.2 -
Evan S. said:Well, any company using Cambria and Calibri would need to retire...Evan S. said:it was probably a sketchy idea from the start. It's like trying to open a lemonade stand when there's a huge, popular lemonade store next to you that has stayed in the business for years before you.
Wrong. That might be your perception but your history is incorrect. Fontdeck was conceived in 2009, before Typekit came out. The two services were designed and developed independently not knowing of each other's existence. Typekit came to market a few months earlier, but Fontdeck was already in private beta at that stage. Our lemonade was already made and the stand ready, it's just that Typekit opened their stall first.1 -
Richard Rutter said:
The answer it seems is that the majority are not actively choosing fonts from Google, they are having that choice made for them, which would explain the numbers.
Looking at Themeforest's top 3 selling templates these use PT Sans, Lato, OpenSans ... Squarespace integrates Google Fonts and TypeKit, Weebly integrates Google Fonts, Jimdo integrates Google Fonts and so on and on.
For now Google seem to have the only free-and-speedy-hosting and easy-to-include-in-3rd-party-apps solution.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 43 Introductions
- 3.7K Typeface Design
- 798 Font Technology
- 1K Technique and Theory
- 617 Type Business
- 444 Type Design Critiques
- 541 Type Design Software
- 30 Punchcutting
- 136 Lettering and Calligraphy
- 83 Technique and Theory
- 53 Lettering Critiques
- 483 Typography
- 301 History of Typography
- 114 Education
- 68 Resources
- 498 Announcements
- 79 Events
- 105 Job Postings
- 148 Type Releases
- 165 Miscellaneous News
- 269 About TypeDrawers
- 53 TypeDrawers Announcements
- 116 Suggestions and Bug Reports