Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!mephisto!mcnc!ecsgate!ecsvax!egapmh From: egapmh@uncecs.edu (Paul M. Hudy) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Royal vs Adobe Summary: Re:Royal vs Adobe Message-ID: <1990Apr10.160109.316@uncecs.edu> Date: 10 Apr 90 16:01:09 GMT References: <27618215MES@MSU> <18000049@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service Lines: 76 From postnews Tue Apr 10 11:45:56 1990 In article <18000049@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, morris@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > > >The two articles quoted don't contradict each other on the facts, but > >they take different views of the implications. One points out, perhaps > >correctly, that Royal is a technical triumph. From this, the author > >supposes that it will win because it *deserves* to win. > > >The other article points out that Adobe has a large, hairy arm around > >the market's neck. From this, the author supposes that Postscript > >will win because it's *already* won. > > In the April 1990 Macworld they have a very well written analysis of Royal and > its implications. The basic reason behind Royal is dollars and cents. As the > article says, "`Royal fonts will be considerably less expensive than current > PostScript fonts because you won't have any royalties attached to them'". This > fact is quite significant. For if there is one thing that changes everything, it > is money. Yes, Apple has a better technology (quadratic curve definition vs. > cubic which render faster), and the new system will simplify the rats nest of > problems caused by font ID conflicts. But the real reason Royal will succeed > while other great technology has failed is quite simple. Royal makes cents! > By breaking the monopolistic power of Adobe, and providing the font technology > without licencing fees, Apple has certainly executed a coup. Royal fonts will > be cheaper and easier to use. And better. They will work for the same reason Well, I didn't realize that Apple was going to develop, design and give away all their Royal faces for free. ;-) Don't forget that some of the licensing fees come not for the font rendering technology, but for the right to copy the font (owned by the type foundries) using your particular rendering technology. Someone still has to design those fonts, etc. and its a major task *and* very few designers get rich designing just fonts. Of course, we can continue the bad and confusing practice (my feeling) of having, for example, Helvetica followed by another company's copycat design called Swiss, and anothers called Geneva, etc. etc. ad nauseum. As to whether Royal is better technology, I keep reading that, but no one has gone into any details as to why. How is it going to make type face design easier? How is it going to make the designers job easier on the end product? What difference am I going to see when I design a newsletter, poster, or ad for a client? Aside from excerting some price pressure, (not a small consideration, granted, but, I don't think the price of fonts is as "elastic" as some people think it is) no one has fleshed out what these promised advantages are going to do for me as and end-user/designer. As to the price of fonts...I doubt this is going to mean one can buy 50 fonts for $50.00. This is just wishful thinking of the cadre of Mac owners who refuse to let go of their old machines, and want to run Pagemaker, Photoshop, AUX and multifinder on their 128K Macs and are angry at the world because they can't. Most of the big money in this arena is in the mid to high end design shops and the cost of an font is a *very* small part of a an overall design job. Plus, I have already bought my dozen or so Adobe fonts. The cost has already been incurred. There is no apparent (not yet) reason for me to incur the cost again. Now, as to quadratic vs. cubic curves/math. My understanding is that quadratic involves simpler math, but far more points to calculate along the curve, while cubic math is more complex but has fewer points on the curve. I have also read the font designers actually prefer *fewer* points, not more. Has something to do with non-computer, "artsy" criteria like elegance of the curve, etc. But who knows at this point? What difference will that make to me as an end user? Anyway, sorry this is so long and rambling. So far, however, John Warnock's quote from back in September still holds true for me - there is a still a large quantity of mumbo jumbo in all this. Now for my prejudices - I own nearly every product Adobe has published and don't regret it, likewise with Pagemaker, and I have owned 3 Apple machines - Apple II+ to SE/30 and haven't regretted those either. Finally, I would rather return to quill and ink than to rely on getting consistant and competant products from Microsoft. Apple joined forces with the dark side when it entered into that pact with MS.] -Paul Hudy UNC-General Administration