Nokia Pure: Nokia's New Official Font

http://brandbook.nokia.com/blog/view/item62250/

by voidnothings • 15 years ago

89 74 15 years ago

brandbook.nokia.com

glhaynes• 15 years ago

When an artist seems to want to tell you more about themselves than their work, the work is usually not all that interesting.

Tichy2• 15 years ago

I think one of Nokia's problems might be an ego that is too big.

tptacek10• 15 years ago

Many companies have house typefaces, and, if you're going to do that, you might as well have the page that says you got Bruno Maag to do it.

Really, when you get to the size of a company like Nokia, you're inevitably going to have an enormous marketing budget just for the boring stuff, like printing costs and designing the N+100th version of your N+100th product's N+5th slick. These are marketing dollars that are getting spent not out of ego, but simply to keep the train on the tracks.

Compared to those expenses, no matter how much it costs to engage Dalton Maag, it's still probably a rounding error.

Wouldn't you rather live in a world where big companies occasionally gave excellent typographers interesting problems to work on, rather than paying someone to round the corners on FF Meta or something?

rbanffy11• 15 years ago

> you're inevitably going to have an enormous marketing budget

If your products are actually good and/or desirable, you may discover that the marketing budget can be reduced and the surplus money be used to develop the next generation good and desirable products.

Tichy2• 15 years ago

I agree, actually, it is just that the timing seems rather bad. But of course they can not put their marketing staff on hold until they have a product worth marketing for...

Jabbles• 15 years ago

Oh sweet, another font where the word "I'll" looks bizarre.

kwantam• 15 years ago

Chrome 9.0.597.83 beta for Linux does not do a very good job with the kerning on that page. Not sure if it's bad hinting or just poor rendering, though.

oconnore• 15 years ago

I noticed it too with Firefox 4//Win7.

gvb• 15 years ago

That is because you are looking at Arial or sans-serif, not at "Nokia Pure Text"... assuming you did not download and install the font on your computer. Check the .css:

  font-family: 'Nokia Pure Text', Arial, sans-serif;

The only thing that is "Nokia Pure" on the web page is the .gif images of the sample text.

This is an insurmountable problem with branded fonts; they only work if you load the branded font on every computer that will ever brush up against it. This means your Word documents will look like crap when you send them to an outside company. This means your web site that proudly uses the font will look like... umm... some generic sans-serif font when you use it on your web page.

The problem is insurmountable because, to fix the problem, you will have to convince everybody in the world to install it on their machine, which will require you to release the font for unrestricted use. A custom company-branded font with unrestricted use is an oxymoron.

scott_s3• 15 years ago

If you're using a browser that supports @font-face, you're looking at Nokia Pure. From http://brandbook.nokia.com/generated_files/pub_module/css/c3...:

  @font-face {
    font-family: 'Nokia Pure Text';
    src: url('/other_files/Brand_Book_v2.2_2011/Fonts/puretext/nokiapuretext-webfont.eot');
    src: url('/other_files/Brand_Book_v2.2_2011/Fonts/puretext/nokiapuretext-webfont.eot?iefix') format('eot'),
         url('/other_files/Brand_Book_v2.2_2011/Fonts/puretext/nokiapuretext-webfont.woff') format('woff'),
         url('/other_files/Brand_Book_v2.2_2011/Fonts/puretext/nokiapuretext-webfont.ttf') format('truetype'),
         url('/other_files/Brand_Book_v2.2_2011/Fonts/puretext/nokiapuretext-webfont.svg#webfont4UxFerZx') format('svg');
    font-weight: normal;
    font-style: normal;
  }

Chrome supports @font-face, so kwantam is looking at Nokia Pure. I think that CSS feature goes a long way in dealing with the problems you listed - at least for webpages.

chc5• 15 years ago

Not only is this problem not insurmountable, it's mostly solved. For websites, HTML5 @font-face is the solution. For distributing documents, PDF has it handled. The only piece of the puzzle that isn't here yet is creating documents with a font you don't actually have — and that space, I think, is intentionally left blank.

dreww• 15 years ago

did you tumble out of a time machine from 1999?

Geee• 15 years ago

They admitted there was a problem with conversion to webfonts, which replaced the original hinting with auto-hinting.

jkeel• 15 years ago

I know there are others out there (Microsoft, Android, etc.) but I do not like corporate branded fonts. I'd much rather they choose a more creative name and open it up for much broader use.

dchest• 15 years ago

Android fonts are open http://www.google.com/webfonts/family?family=Droid+Sans&...

tptacek10• 15 years ago

I like the dots on the i's and j's.

gregschlom• 15 years ago

Looks good, a little bit toyish, though. The endings of the letters look like they are rounded. I prefer the stylish seriousness of Helvetica Light on the iPhone, but that's a matter of taste.

fluidcruft• 15 years ago

Haha. Way to try and ride on Facebook's branding.

vessenes• 15 years ago

I like it. It's clean, reads nicely at small sizes on a screen, and shows its Modernist heritage while going for a little more motion.

I wish I could use it on my web application (I think), but my quick scan doesn't show any licensing information.

Flemlord• 15 years ago

Looks like Microsoft Segoe UI, which would make sense.

LoonyPandora• 15 years ago

Erik Spiekermann isn't very happy about the new typeface. He did the original, and says this one is bland [1]. Though it is, the old face was shockingly dated and needed replacing [2].

Nokia Pure is a nice readable typeface, very appropriate for use on mobile devices, elegant in it's own way - but too bland. They should've saved some money and just said "Frutiger".

At least they aren't setting their logo in it.

[1] https://twitter.com/espiekermann/status/51173410415452160

[2] http://twitpic.com/4edrh7

jluxenberg• 15 years ago

the old face was shockingly dated and needed replacing

How was the older typeface dated, other than being from 2002?

tptacek10• 15 years ago

It (the original) has a very Santa Clara circa 1998 Rotis corporate thing going for it.

rbanffy11• 15 years ago

This is awesome. With this new beautiful, strong font acting as a multiplier of the huge competitive advantage they got by opting for Windows Phone 7, both iPhone and Android are doomed.

tptacek10• 15 years ago

Nokia is a global company that does many tens of billions of dollars a year in revenue. Believe it or not, they did not commission a new typeface to impress Reddit and HN. This is not part of their plan to take on iOS and Android. So, I don't understand the point you're making with your comment. Are you suggesting that everything at Nokia come to a complete standstill until they can placate smartphone pundits?

It's just frustrating that, just because we don't "like" Nokia, we can't talk about the actual story; everything has to be a referendum on WP7.

rbanffy11• 15 years ago

Would you buy Nokia shares now and hold them for five years?

danilocampos3• 15 years ago

FWIW, Apple redefined mobile computing while using an off-the-shelf font. Helvetica, no less.

The actual story is goofy no matter how you slice it. If someone wants to take a little potshot at WP7, where's the harm? We're really losing out to the vast and deep discussion that would otherwise be happening about Nokia's profoundly important piece of R&D here?

devtesla• 15 years ago

Oh god, I can't tell if you are being sarcastic. head explode

baddox• 15 years ago

It looks decent: modern and playful. I'm not typeface expert, but it seems like there are more implied vertical lines than I would expect.

dotcoma• 15 years ago

Now I finally know what they've been doing for the last 4 years...

marcamillion• 15 years ago

I thought this was a joke at first, but am pleasantly surprised.

I actually checked my calendar, but realized it is still 2 days away.

T minus 2 days for the most ridiculous headlines of the year.

marckremers• 15 years ago

I can't believe what I'm reading here. That font is awful. The x-height is too short in terms of ratio, the counters are squashed, the stroke width is far too fat. It looks totally clunky on my screen. And that page design?! Show some love Nokia!

raquo• 15 years ago

They probably spent a lot of resources to develop this font and didn't even bother to move the "Our new typeface" headline a pixel or two to the left so that it looks like it's actually left-aligned with all the other text.

moondowner2• 15 years ago

Why? I really liked (and still like) the one they used up until now [1]. It looked fancy, it was _really_ distinctive, and it had a great readable font for devices (e.g. screenshot [2]). What more do you need from a typeface?

P.S. Doesn't this new typeface somehow remind you of Windows Phone 7's one?

[1] http://spiekermann.com/en/nokia-sans-character/ [2] http://www.flickr.com/photos/21709201@N00/4263893860/

tptacek10• 15 years ago

I'm no expert, but:

* Spiekermann's face is distinctive, but also dated; Spiekermann himself draws a comparison to Rotis in the PDF spec for the face.

* The face is complicated. Look towards the back of spec book for whole pages set in it. It draws a bit of attention to itself.

* In the same vein: it's complicated enough to require a serif and "wide" variation to make it work in all the settings Nokia needs type. Don't underestimate how annoying that may have been for people working at Nokia. One company I worked with ditched an identity that used Mrs. Eaves and Futura (which looked awesome, I thought) because no normal person could make a document look good in it.

The new face is all these things in reverse:

* It's trendy (yeah, to the point of being boring)

* It's simple

* It's all-purpose

And sure, at the end of the day, maybe they just wanted to refresh for the hell of it.

Also: remember that the cost to re-do all their docs in a new visual style will probably dwarf the cost of getting a face commissioned. If they were going to refresh the identity anyways (that's just something companies do once or twice every decade), and the cost of a Dalton Maag typeface is a tiny part of that, why not?

moondowner2• 15 years ago

All arguments valid, but I still kinda like the old typeface more.

It's true that it has too many variations, but probably the new one will have as well. I doubt that only 3-4 variations will exist, there'll be more - for devices, for logos, etc...

A refresh of the identity is a must every once in a while, it's the only explanation I see why the old one should be changed ;), but I doubt that their old docs will be redone in the new corporate branding, only the currently used will be redone and the new docs will use it.

cromulent• 15 years ago

And the links for download:

http://brandbook.nokia.com/other_files/Brand_Book_v2.2_2011/...

As posted here:

http://craig.dubculture.co.nz/blog/2011/03/26/putting-nokias...

naner• 15 years ago

What are the license terms?

gnufs• 15 years ago

"Copyright © 2011 Nokia. All rights reserved. Reproduction, transfer, distribution or storage of part or all of the contents in this document in any form without the prior written permission of Nokia is prohibited."

antihero• 15 years ago

Looks beautiful on my Desire. Any word on a bold font?

JCB_K• 15 years ago

When I saw the font, I got the feeling it hadn't changed much. Then I compared it to the old one, and I realized it's completely different, but it just gave the same feeling. In other words: very good job.

ignifero• 15 years ago

OK , now I am starting to get worried about Nokia

Joeri• 15 years ago

Well, that's a wrap. Nokia is done with being about technology.

mikesurowiec• 15 years ago

At first I thought the lowercase 'g' was weird, because it's facing to the right, but then I guess it makes sense with their 'seamless motion' tag.

bborud• 15 years ago

first impression: too fidgety.

Nokia Pure: Nokia's New Official Font

Related Stories