Apple Adopts San Francisco Typeface for Apple.com Website

[Wackery]

i would be upset, but i actually like san francisco font

 

[TMRJIJ]

I have a freshly installed macOS Sierra 10.12.3 on my MacBook Pro and I can't find the San Francisco font in the font collection. Where is it?

Is it possible that the font isn't preinstalled along with macOS Sierra but has to be downloaded from the Apple Developer website?

Is it? I mean yes, they are used for the UI, but I don't see them being available for users to use (let's say on Pages)

My mistake. It is the System font for iOS and macOS but just can't be used as a typing font. You can add these fonts from my server to use for macOS typing.
SystemSanFrancisco.zip

 

[jmh600cbr]

I genuinely like thin fonts. This looks bold

 

[thadoggfather]

it looks weird across the whole website

on the homepage its ok but a bit jarring approaching mid cycle,

wheres the jet white to spruce things up?

 

[MathersMahmood]

Looks like apple is making some changes lately. Hopefully it's a good sign.

 

[Mjmar]

Myriad is so iconic though :/

 

[radiology]

Nice dodge.



This place is pathetic.

So is this article about a font.

 

[satchmo]

With the myriad of fonts, they found one in San Francisco.

 

[ErikGrim]

Allow me to have a rare moment of negativity here, as a sometime typographer. San Francisco is a lovely UI typeface, but it does not work at all in large headlines. It lacks proper differentiating weights and looks especially bad on the Mac Book Pro headline.

There was a reason why up until now Apple had separate typefaces for user interface and other media. You never saw a print ad set in Chicago or Charcoal. You never had UI elements set in Apple Garamond. Yes, those were specifically design and set for low vs high resolutions, but even with retina screens today typefaces made for user interfaces still look awkward and "cheap" when displayed at headline sizes.

 

[LongTimeListener]

I'm used to San Francisco's light weight in iOS. The heavier weight they've chosen for the website titles makes it look less graceful.

Yeah - exactly. Somehow it doesn't feel like they're using the font well yet. They've lost some finesse to the site, but I feel that's more implementation than the new font's fault.

 

[v0lume4]

Love that font. I remember when I first booted up iOS 9 and saw it everywhere. Absolutely beautiful.

 

[richpjr]

Congratulations, MR. You managed to go negative over a fri**in' font story. A font story! Ooh, let me have a go:

Almost as much spacing between those ugly letters as there is between Mac Mini updates!

Was that good?

Next up: Tim Cook saves a baby from a burning building. MR forums: Cook can take the time to save a baby but he can't even make a battery last all day. Wah!

The real question should be - why is this even a story worth covering? It's a freaking font.

 

[ErikGrim]

The real question should be - why is this even a story worth covering? It's a freaking font.

Typefaces matter. It's an integral part of the user experience. If you do not care for details, why are you even an Apple user?

 

[richpjr]

Typefaces matter. It's an integral part of the user experience. If you do not care for details, why are you even an Apple user?

So are watch bands.

What font is on Apple's website has zero bearing on my decision to buy or not buy a product from Apple.

 

[pika2000]

I checked out Apple's website, and the bold face they use for all the headers are a bit jarring, probably since I got used to the slim-n-thin-Jonny-Ive-ish fonts.
On the other hand, I do agree that this new font is more legible. Just have to get used to it.

 

[Solomani]

They should have used the eWorld font!

 

[Col4bin]

As a designer, I appreciatete the San Francisco font as it's been used in Watch OS and iOS since 2015. IMO however, it does not look nearly as good when used at larger point sizes in print or on the company's websites--especially the bold weights.

 

[lazyrighteye]

... It's always looked like a weird Frankenstein between Helvetica and Comic Sans. Far too playful...

Ha. Nailed it.

 

[Porco]

Something something... be sure to wear some flowers in your hair...

I think it looks ok, but not necessarily an improvement.

 

[Col4bin]

So are watch bands.

What font is on Apple's website has zero bearing on my decision to buy or not buy a product from Apple.

It's called branding and identity. No matter how you trivialize it, it is a vital cog in Apple's overall brand strategy to maintain presence, visibility and relevance with us consumers.

 

[JediZenMaster]

It's called branding and identity. No matter how you trivialize it, it is a vital cog in Apple's overall brand strategy to maintain presence, visibility and relevance with us consumers.

For sure, Pretty much since the launch of iPhone 7 the commercials have been a lot more bolder and the bolder San Francisco font I am assuming is an offshoot of that.

 

[gigapocket1]

Wow.. I enjoy the new font on the Apple website. Everything looks bold and clear. It draws attention and crisp. Its a nice change

 

[Millah]

They can make a font, but they cannot update their mac line up regularly? Guess they are too busy doing more important things

Because typeface designers and Apple.com engineers are responsible for Mac hardware? You guys have a pretty poor sense of resource allocation. Developing the new MacBook Pro hardware, built-in apps designed for Touch Bar, the Touch Bar human interface guidelines, and TouchBar software frameworks required SIGNIFICANT software and hardware engineering investment. Implementing a new typeface on Apple.com does not.

Cue the 1000th joke about emojis. News flash, Apple isn't responsible for emoji. That would be Unicode. Platform vendors simply interpret Unicodes definitions into icons when Unicode releases a new set of emoji, and then implement into the platform. Apple usually isn't even first to implement. Even though they should be trying to be on par with everyone else, so that Unicode characters can be viewed universally across platforms (hence the name Unicode).

But let's continue to mock Apple over something so childish. This website used to have legitimately insightful criticisms and debates around Apple. it's still here, but it gets drowned out by nothing but immature nonsense. I guess MR has become a victim of their own (and Apples) success.

 

[typecase]

Allow me to have a rare moment of negativity here, as a sometime typographer. San Francisco is a lovely UI typeface, but it does not work at all in large headlines. It lacks proper differentiating weights and looks especially bad on the Mac Book Pro headline.

There was a reason why up until now Apple had separate typefaces for user interface and other media. You never saw a print ad set in Chicago or Charcoal. You never had UI elements set in Apple Garamond. Yes, those were specifically design and set for low vs high resolutions, but even with retina screens today typefaces made for user interfaces still look awkward and "cheap" when displayed at headline sizes.

Thank you for saying this. My thoughts exactly.

 

[MH01]

They can make a font, but they cannot update their mac line up regularly? Guess they are too busy doing more important things

Clearly you have not seen the emoji pipeline. Impressive stuff .
[doublepost=1485331308][/doublepost]

You're following the wrong company if you don't see design as extremely important.

Wait.....like adding a touch bar to a computer renowned for its design and accessibility . Before you reply google accessability and Mac bookPro 2016

It's form over function these days , and apple was at the forefront , but gimmicks sell .
[doublepost=1485331366][/doublepost]Personally I preferred the old font, but it's a personal thing. Not like I spend much time in the website, little changes