It's worth noticing that this font is licensed under the Apache License Version 2.0.

So it's ok to use it in personal or commercial projects (by including a copy of the license an propper attribution).

The font can be found in the folder data/fonts on the Android SDK 4.0 / r14, and also the Readme file that states the license.

You can also download it from the link.

I don't understand why they haven't added it to the Google Web Fonts directory yet.

You can already:

<link rel="stylesheet" href="http://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Roboto:regular,medium...;

See this post:

https://plus.google.com/108761828584265913206/posts/JyBRu1gs...

Probably because they don't really want people to use it. I imagine the license has to be fairly open to allow for unencumbered distribution with android, but it's a part of the android brand. Every time it gets used outside of android makes it a little more generic and dilutes the android brand a little bit.

If it were visually distinguishable from Helvetica, maybe. But it's really not. It's more modern, more complete, and probably "better" in some typographical way that I don't understand. But it's really not. What this represents to the free software community is a repackaging of a Helvetica-like font in a way that doesn't suck. To anyone concerned about the "Android brand" it's a wash.

Droid Sans, however, is available in Google Web Fonts.

I have to say, that Android Design minisite is full of useful nuggets of information on app design. It's worth a look regardless of your thoughts on Roboto.

I wish that google would add this font to GDocs already. Love it.

Roboto is Google's Arial.

It's the result of intellectual property licensing.

It's pointless comparing Google to Apple here. Apple has learnt that it's more important to license fonts from the legitimate IP holders instead of generating dupes that are just different enough to avoid a damages case. Even when creating custom typefaces based on existing fonts, Apple have engaged the original IP holder to create the font (see Apple Garamond.)

Roboto a chimera of existing popular typefaces and the problem with that is that it's a poorly assembled "frankenfont", the borrowed sections are obvious and poorly connected, this creates an inconsistent aesthetic. Namely a shitty typeface.

However, just like Arial, everyday users don't, and won't care - there is no point fussing over it, the only thing this shows is that Google hires lame design agencies, and is perhaps not as thoughtful as championed.

The problem with Hacker News is that there is a demongraphic of two faced users who gush over their preferred tech companies, while scorning others. Note here that Microsoft did similar with Windows 7 and the dialogue was far different to what I'm reading today.

I'm not a Roboto fan. I think Gruber sums it up the best: http://daringfireball.net/2011/10/font_hipsters

I have no idea how much you know about type design, but I get the sense that the vast majority of people disparaging Roboto don't actually know shit about typography, and are just parroting what's been said by a handful of bloggers (many of whom also aren't particularly well versed). If a lot of these guys were asked to rate a bunch of unnamed fonts without the benefit of the internet to tell them what they think about them, they would probably make some terrible font snob faux pas.

I'm not an expert of typography, but to my eyes, it's a nice, clean, readable screen font. So is the Droid font family. It's not my absolute favourite, but there are more pressing issues in the world.

Typographica featured a more educated slashing blogpost about Roboto: http://typographica.org/on-typography/roboto-typeface-is-a-f...

This is actually a very educational article. To my layman's eyes, at least, which found Roboto a bit "off" or "wobbly" but couldn't figure out why that was exactly.

John Gruber is extremely well versed in typography. He talks at great length about typefaces in his podcast and has worked for Bare Bones Software on BBEdit, a well known text editor. I would tend to trust his judgements on this matter.

Gruber does seem to know a lot, thought I'm not sure that talking about type on your podcast or working for a company that develops a text editor exactly proves that. That said, he's clearly got a snarky agenda about Android, which makes me take anything he writes about it with a grain of salt.

What annoys me is not so much Gruber or other bloggers having an opinion, it's the followers who take what they write as fact. Roboto probably isn't a font for the ages, but it seems to do what it set out to do very well. The people who worked on it aren't idiots.

Android has its issues, but I'm sick of the little cabal of Apple writers who portray it and everything surrounding it as a trainwreck.

Gruber knows a lot according to Gruber. And his legions of fans.

It seems the word "only" was omitted from your comment.

How about you trust your own eyes and feelings about this sort of things?

All I did was mention that I agreed with Gruber not that he swayed me one way or the other. I think the fonts in ICS along with the rest of the Android interface is just awful. And obviously saying that in a thread which would appeal to an android user would go over like a lead ballon. Just thinking for myself.

I'll put up good money that you couldn't tell the difference between Helvetica Neue and Roboto in a blind test. Calling a near clone font "awful" is just dumb, sorry.

I'll choose to ignore the insult. Actually, I'm a web designer and I could quite easily tell them apart. Couldn't you?

Near clones have a big potential to be awful. Uncanny valley and all that.

I've been using an Android phone recently after being iOS-only for the last two years and it's really opened my eyes to the agenda of people like Gruber. Don't expect him to give any Google product a fair shake. His recent gushing review of the hideous skeuomorphisms of iPhoto for iOS demonstrates what passes for tech journalism these days.

Lots of tech journalism is like Fox News in its intellectual dishonesty. I know I've been on a jag these past several posts about it, but all the covert agendas and hyper-polarized opinions (page views!) is really doing major damage to the quality of the discourse in practically all online tech communities.

Gruber doesn't sum anything up. The post you linked to states that everyone claiming that the font isn't very bad or defending it is wrong. He doesn't say anything else.

It's very very clear that he doesn't care to give anything Android related a single positive thought. I don't care why, it's not something I choose to engage with, but you can't honestly suggest that (1) the linked article actually said anything other than, "I know you are, but what am I," or that (2) ANYTHING Gruber says about Android can ever be taken at face value after his very long and well documented tendency to go beyond the truth to disparage it.

I think that an argument can easily be made that the font doesn't look classically right on a large screen. On the devices I have seen it on (especially because the weight is usually so low that the terminators are essentially invisible) it looks just fine.

But guys, seriously, don't use this on a webpage.

Gruber's post contains nothing substantive except for "The criticism is simply that Roboto is ungainly, homely, unharmonious."

The remainder of the post is a diatribe that only succeeds in saying "nobody else likes it either."

I'd say it was more:

"Roboto is ungainly, homely, unharmonious and it looks exactly like Helvetica, which of course is gainly, beautiful and harmonious."

Well, he clearly felt that three adjectives to describe the font was sufficient. I would have to agree. Of course everything on Daring Fireball is normally in the context of how a certain topic pertains to Apple which the rest of the article covers succinctly.

JC almighty.

Why do so many people need to have such STRONG OPINIONS about everything that isn't what they happen to own?

Well, if you're talking about Gruber, having opinions is pretty much his job.

Is having opinions Gruber's job or reinforcing them?

I read a lot of font blog posts and find them impressive, yet ultimately unhelpful. They discuss similarities and differences with other fonts in extraordinary detail. They show images of individual glyphs enlarged beyond practicality and pick at the details. They talk about the people who designed the fonts and their reputations. They talk about the companies who funded them and their motivations. They throw about words like "casual", "rigid", "cheerful", "fresh", "clean", and "rhythm".

Has anyone done any A/B testing? How about controlled surveys? I'd like to see actual data collected from normal people who don't know Helvetica by name.

I understand your frustration if you come from a field with a data-based approach. But one doesn't measure good typeface design by data alone. Sure, there are such things as readability studies that can inform a design, but typography is one of those many crafts that are measured by the eyes of experienced experts and discerning users, not A/B tests.