Why Did Adobe Discontinue Font Chameleon in the 90s?

Back in the mid to late 90s, Adobe acquired a company called Ares Software. Ares made font-​related software products, including doing the programming (but not owning or distributing) of Letraset FontStudio, which in its day was one of the best font editors. They are best known for a remarkable application and technology called Font Chameleon.

There is a popular myth that Adobe bought Font Chameleon to kill a threatening technology. Actually, no, removing it from the market was not a motivation for the acquisition. The team that made fonts and would have cared one way or another had nothing to do with those decisions, and were simply not interested in Font Chameleon.

Adobe’s purchase of Ares was done to acquire Font Chameleon technology, and was entirely driven by the PostScript group at Adobe, to use the technology for font compression purposes to fit more, cheaper, in the ROM of PostScript 3 printers. All Ares retail products (not just Font Chameleon) were discontinued as Adobe put the two Ares principals to work on adapting the Chameleon tech for Adobe’s use.

(Also, Font Chameleon was in some respects massively more powerful than MM, but also had huge limitations. It could only handle the axes it knew about, and could only handle the characters it knew about.)

I joined Adobe in mid-​1997, shortly after the acquisition, and thought it was an interesting tech. I ended up deeply involved in helping make the whole system work together (chameleon fonts in ROM including CE fonts, printer drivers, and supposedly matching fonts on end user computers). All the systems were optimized to make an individual piece work in a static environment, according to known schema. Real end-​to-​end testing of these things hadn’t really been needed in years. But because there were numerous technical changes being made at the same time to all these pieces, suddenly end-​to-​end testing was critical. I got involved in pointing that out and pushing everyone to make sure their pieces played together instead of them all trying to point at specs that had been made before any of the pieces actually existed. 

Through some internal asking around at Adobe, I was able to get my hands on Ares’ Font Chameleon editor: the company’s internal tool used to make a Chameleon “font descriptor” that could be blended with others. These font descriptors as individual files were also super compact, which is why the PostScript team wanted the tech. They relied on a (large) mutatable “master” font , plus the descriptors; the master + descriptors for 136 PostScript 3 fonts were a LOT smaller than the set of fonts themselves, and allowed support for central European accented characters with hardly any size impact.

What was super interesting to me was how insanely fast it was to create such a font descriptor—which could also be exported as a stand-​alone font if one wished, not to mention instantly manipulated in weight, width, x-​height, etcetera. At the time I thought it could have been an incredible rapid prototyping tool. With it I could do in a day what would otherwise take me weeks. But the limitations of the tech, and tendency to encourage some degree of blandification meant… nobody in a position of power and influence within the type group was interested. They had looked at it, and decided it had inferior results and wasn’t worth pursuing.

It is also worth noting that the lead programmers from Ares were freakin’ brilliant, but the code was not entirely stable/​reliable. I certainly had quite a few crashes using the Chameleon editor—although to be fair, it was only intended as an internal app, not a retail/​external app.

So, Font Chameleon died because the Adobe hardware team that bought it wanted it for underlying tech, and didn’t do retail software products. Whereas the team that did retail fonts had no interest in it, thought there were quality issues, and there was a general perception that maintaining/​developing any of the Ares products as retail software would have been painful.

Comments

3 responses to “Why Did Adobe Discontinue Font Chameleon in the 90s?”

  1. Bruce Allen

    I’ve lost my copy of Font Chameleon and have found no way to replace it. My copy was quite stable. I grieve its loss.

  2. Gerry Kowarsky

    Hi, Thomas.
    Did the investment in this technology pay off for Adobe in terms of lower memory requirements for Postscript 3 printers? Is the technology still used in the current generation of Adobe print engines, or are built-​in fonts no longer a requirement?
    Best,
    Gerry

  3. Did it pay off? Maybe, but I am thinking not. Did it mean reduced ROM storage requirements, for that number of fonts? Yes.

    But fundamentally, building in 136 fonts (I think it was) into ROM was being done as a marketing exercise. The print subsystem was made considerably more complex (with support for eastern European languages and some host-​based fonts in TrueType as well as some in Type 1, as I recall). The troubles with nobody being responsible for end-​to-​end operation of the process meant people would go and build their siloed pieces of the system, which did not necessarily work together. My vague memory is that actual shipping ended up being months late. Maybe three to six months?

    And for what benefit? Fonts built into the printer were supposed to make printing faster and add user value, but also meant issues matching with the “same” font on the host. Just a couple years later we had to add the euro character to all these fonts, and having those fonts also built into printers with a static character set (that did not include the euro on existing printers) became more obviously the liability it always was. I mean, sure, solving these problems made for some lovely patent opportunities for me and others, but… not actually a good situation.

    The speed benefits of fonts built into ROM were only relevant to users who wanted to use those particular fonts, and the speed difference was no longer all that substantial.

    The whole thing was misguided, honestly. As somebody who had just started at Adobe a month or two earlier, I don’t think I was initially analyzing it in those terms, but I think some folks such as Dov Isaacs saw it for the boondoggle it was, even before it all went to hell.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.