Google releases its new Google Sans Flex font as open source

Variable font features and flexibility

• Many commenters welcome another high-quality variable font, especially one that’s open and broadly usable on the web.
• Google Sans Flex’s multiple axes (weight, width, roundness, etc.) are praised as powerful; the roundness axis is seen as particularly uncommon and interesting.
• Some note that Google Fonts’ variable controls have improved and now allow fine-grained tweaking (e.g., font-stretch), but warn this can lead to over-optimization and time-wasting.
• Roboto Flex is cited as a benchmark, with more axes and even finer control, making Flex notable more for openness than for sheer capability.

Licensing and openness

• Compared with Apple’s San Francisco (seen as tightly and restrictively licensed), Google’s move is viewed as a positive step for designers and developers.
• People who have fought “font licensing hell” are especially appreciative of more redistributable, web‑safe options.
• However, the Open Font License–style “Reserved Font Name” clause means you can’t ship a modified version under the same name, so practical community collaboration on this exact font is limited.

Legibility and glyph disambiguation

• A large subthread criticizes Google Sans Flex for poor distinction between iIlL1 and 0O, failing the common “iIlL0Oo / i1IlL0Oo” test.
• Many argue that ambiguity is unacceptable for tokens, passwords, codes, and technical UIs; they advocate fonts with clearly distinct glyphs or slashed/dotted zeros by default.
• Alternatives praised for clarity include Ubuntu, Nunito Sans, IBM Plex Sans, Atkinson Hyperlegible (and its Next/Mono variants), and various monospaced programming fonts.
• Others counter that this is an interface/display font where context often suffices; for sensitive strings one can switch to a specialized font or avoid ambiguous characters entirely.

Aesthetics, use cases, and “does this matter?”

• Some find Google Sans Flex visually bland or “geometric” and less suitable for long body text, preferring Roboto, Inter, or classic humanist/grotesque sans‑serifs.
• Others argue fonts do matter for legibility, accessibility, and international coverage, but question the need for yet another near‑indistinguishable sans‑serif.
• There’s mild confusion about Google open‑sourcing a font closely tied to its brand, potentially diluting the visual distinction of its own products.