- From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:14:14 -0700
- To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
> New entrants to the market, however, would have > stronger incentive to enter the market with > looser licensing. That is my suspicion: that TTF/OTF > is being resisted in an attempt to exclude such > new entrants. LOL! That is the funniest thing I've heard all week. Speaking as somebody who is still something of an "industry insider" but no longer has any financial interest in the health of type vendors, I can assure you that sure as heck isn't a motive. In fact, I doubt the idea even entered the head of a single person . Putting it another way: *why* would looser licensing create more market entrants? The foundries could be wrong about it, but they want the solution that maximizes their revenue... however no proposed solution creates any barriers to market entry for font vendors. So logically such solutions will also maximize the number of competitors. All assuming the foundries are right about what maximizes their revenue, of course. But the notion that something like EOT or any of the approaches discussed here creates barriers to entry in the market for fonts is pretty amusing.... Cheers, T
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 23:14:49 UTC