Isn't it just Myriad Pro Light with the kerning turned down to insane levels? We're not accustomed to seeing anything in MPL unless it's a number or the word "Air".
Let's see…
Ah, nope.
That'd be Helvetica Neue 25 Ultra Light; trust me, I'm a designer.
Edit: Actually, scratch that! Upon further inspection, I noticed that the curves in the D and C are not quite the same. I'd venture to say it's Neue Haas Grotesk, a recent “clean-up” and update job done on the well-known Helvetica by going directly to the original source:
So kudos for Apple for having their graphic design department use it instead of the outdated Helvetica but, then again, why does Mac OS X still come with Helvetica Neue pre-installed on the System folder to support iApps? And they might as well make up their minds about this whole Lucida Grande / Helvetica messy ambivalence!
While on this subject, It seems I'll be the first one to predict it, at least on this thread: as much conflicted as I may feel about it, I'm half-confident OS X 10.9's default system-wide font will be Helvetica. If it isn't right away, at least on 10.10 (even though there was, indeed, a 10.4.11, won't they change the main versioning scheme to just XI, 11, or unify it altogether with iOS by then?).
The writing has been on the wall for quite some time now: i[Phone]OS since its very inception iPhoto, Final Cut X, iTunes and now the WWDC invitation featuring Helvetica instead of Lucida Grande/Myriad Pro are tell-tale signs of an ongoing shift. What seems strange, to me, is who exactly was its mentor… Jobs? Ive? Forstall…?
I'd pin it on Jobs, though. For all his “calligraphy lessons in college” talk, Jobs always behaved erratically when picking fonts. For someone so supposedly well-versed in the art of calligraphy, Motter Tektura was really too much of a product of its era. I mean, really, will you just look at that… Apple Garamond, though an improvement and a timeless classic that still has some residual brand equity today among us Apple geeks, was a terribly distorted version of an already bad version of the french classic (factors which, one could say, were also a product of their era, as optical distortions were made easier with phototypesetting and even more so with digital typesetting, and early digitizations were less-than-stellar renditions of sometimes bad photo matrix copies themselves, instead of being produced directly from original drawings, princeps editions and specimen prints). As for Lucida Grande, it was the inevitable choice for relatively low resolution screens, and Myriad Pro was also a pragmatic and perfectly acceptable (albeit bland) choice for print. Chicago may still remain, IMHO, as the pinnacle of bitmap fonts for interfaces, but it doesn't seem likely we'll ever witness a comeback apart from on some retro applications.
Anyway, as much as it pains me to say it, Microsoft and Google, though far from being perfectly honest examples (I believe I've read somewhere the recent font additions to the Office suite, while not blatant rip-offs like Arial and Times New Roman, are not exactly original either, and I'm also weary of dealing with Google Fonts in any way whatsoever, seeing as Google has a knack for backstabbing both users and developers alike), have been developing some quite interesting work on typography as of late, whereas as for Apple, its choice and application (let alone development!) seems to come down as an afterthought…
It's a shame that the richest company in the world can't even commission a custom font from a top type designer like Spiekermann, Carter, or any one of them dutch guys for that matter. Heck, why not make a truce with Adobe and hire them to do it? With some luck, my talented fellow countryman Miguel Sousa could end up working on that project. To add insult to injury, all this sloppyness and randomness comes from the company that singlehandedly revolutionized print (and is now, ironically enough, nailing its coffin by forcing a digital rebirth of sorts with Retina displays) by heralding in DTP and digital type design as accessible and somewhat affordable activities. Meh… I certainly expected more from them. /rant
The valuable part is access to the Apple engineers and other sessions with contact with other parts of Apple.
But the bulk of the event is the conference program, and I don't see why that could not be streamed in real time.
I would probably pay double to attend an event of the same size with the access to Apple staff, but I'd also pay $100 to access a live stream and code examples delivered more expediently.
This way a much larger virtual conference could be run, it would generate more cash because of the higher attendance cost and that could be used to pay for the streaming of the content.
I can't emphasise that the only part for me that didn't work in last years conference was the slow way the code samples were distributed. And not just slow, patchy. Some of the most useful sessions from last year still do not have posted source code for the Demos. So I've had to sit slowly inching through the videos trying to type in the lines of code, but theres always a bit you can't see and its quite a game figuring out what happens in that invisible slice of code.
I can't emphasise that the only part for me that didn't work in last years conference was the slow way the code samples were distributed. And not just slow, patchy. Some of the most useful sessions from last year still do not have posted source code for the Demos. So I've had to sit slowly inching through the videos trying to type in the lines of code, but theres always a bit you can't see and its quite a game figuring out what happens in that invisible slice of code.
Apple has said that some of the code samples were not legally allowed to be provided. Mostly those that used GPL or other libraries that were used is my guess. I have no idea. Maybe it used some internal iOS/OS X code or something proprietary.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Espoused as fact.
Such as?
Isn't it just Myriad Pro Light with the kerning turned down to insane levels? We're not accustomed to seeing anything in MPL unless it's a number or the word "Air".
Let's see…
Ah, nope.
That'd be Helvetica Neue 25 Ultra Light; trust me, I'm a designer.
Edit: Actually, scratch that! Upon further inspection, I noticed that the curves in the D and C are not quite the same. I'd venture to say it's Neue Haas Grotesk, a recent “clean-up” and update job done on the well-known Helvetica by going directly to the original source:
http://www.fontbureau.com/nhg/history/
http://www.fontbureau.com/nhg/specimens/
So kudos for Apple for having their graphic design department use it instead of the outdated Helvetica but, then again, why does Mac OS X still come with Helvetica Neue pre-installed on the System folder to support iApps? And they might as well make up their minds about this whole Lucida Grande / Helvetica messy ambivalence!
While on this subject, It seems I'll be the first one to predict it, at least on this thread: as much conflicted as I may feel about it, I'm half-confident OS X 10.9's default system-wide font will be Helvetica. If it isn't right away, at least on 10.10 (even though there was, indeed, a 10.4.11, won't they change the main versioning scheme to just XI, 11, or unify it altogether with iOS by then?).
The writing has been on the wall for quite some time now: i[Phone]OS since its very inception iPhoto, Final Cut X, iTunes and now the WWDC invitation featuring Helvetica instead of Lucida Grande/Myriad Pro are tell-tale signs of an ongoing shift. What seems strange, to me, is who exactly was its mentor… Jobs? Ive? Forstall…?
I'd pin it on Jobs, though. For all his “calligraphy lessons in college” talk, Jobs always behaved erratically when picking fonts. For someone so supposedly well-versed in the art of calligraphy, Motter Tektura was really too much of a product of its era. I mean, really, will you just look at that… Apple Garamond, though an improvement and a timeless classic that still has some residual brand equity today among us Apple geeks, was a terribly distorted version of an already bad version of the french classic (factors which, one could say, were also a product of their era, as optical distortions were made easier with phototypesetting and even more so with digital typesetting, and early digitizations were less-than-stellar renditions of sometimes bad photo matrix copies themselves, instead of being produced directly from original drawings, princeps editions and specimen prints). As for Lucida Grande, it was the inevitable choice for relatively low resolution screens, and Myriad Pro was also a pragmatic and perfectly acceptable (albeit bland) choice for print. Chicago may still remain, IMHO, as the pinnacle of bitmap fonts for interfaces, but it doesn't seem likely we'll ever witness a comeback apart from on some retro applications.
Anyway, as much as it pains me to say it, Microsoft and Google, though far from being perfectly honest examples (I believe I've read somewhere the recent font additions to the Office suite, while not blatant rip-offs like Arial and Times New Roman, are not exactly original either, and I'm also weary of dealing with Google Fonts in any way whatsoever, seeing as Google has a knack for backstabbing both users and developers alike), have been developing some quite interesting work on typography as of late, whereas as for Apple, its choice and application (let alone development!) seems to come down as an afterthought…
It's a shame that the richest company in the world can't even commission a custom font from a top type designer like Spiekermann, Carter, or any one of them dutch guys for that matter. Heck, why not make a truce with Adobe and hire them to do it? With some luck, my talented fellow countryman Miguel Sousa could end up working on that project. To add insult to injury, all this sloppyness and randomness comes from the company that singlehandedly revolutionized print (and is now, ironically enough, nailing its coffin by forcing a digital rebirth of sorts with Retina displays) by heralding in DTP and digital type design as accessible and somewhat affordable activities. Meh… I certainly expected more from them. /rant
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
What are these developers thinking anyway? Why attend a developer's conference of a company on its way out? Why develop for a dead platform? ¡¡¡
Because that's where the money is.
But the bulk of the event is the conference program, and I don't see why that could not be streamed in real time.
I would probably pay double to attend an event of the same size with the access to Apple staff, but I'd also pay $100 to access a live stream and code examples delivered more expediently.
This way a much larger virtual conference could be run, it would generate more cash because of the higher attendance cost and that could be used to pay for the streaming of the content.
I can't emphasise that the only part for me that didn't work in last years conference was the slow way the code samples were distributed. And not just slow, patchy. Some of the most useful sessions from last year still do not have posted source code for the Demos. So I've had to sit slowly inching through the videos trying to type in the lines of code, but theres always a bit you can't see and its quite a game figuring out what happens in that invisible slice of code.
I remember the good old day of 06-09 where there was an IT track...
Quote:
Originally Posted by realpaulfreeman
I can't emphasise that the only part for me that didn't work in last years conference was the slow way the code samples were distributed. And not just slow, patchy. Some of the most useful sessions from last year still do not have posted source code for the Demos. So I've had to sit slowly inching through the videos trying to type in the lines of code, but theres always a bit you can't see and its quite a game figuring out what happens in that invisible slice of code.
Apple has said that some of the code samples were not legally allowed to be provided. Mostly those that used GPL or other libraries that were used is my guess. I have no idea. Maybe it used some internal iOS/OS X code or something proprietary.