[phillmv]

>First, it's a logotype. Some of the world's most recognizable logos are, like this, logotypes.

I'm willing to accept this. Point to your favour.

>Third, why would you want the font used for this particular logo?

Because I might want to tweak it, resize it, use it on letterheads, put it on my business card, create sub products that follow the "brand style", etc. A vector drawing at the minimum is essential.

That said it's entirely moot because I took a look at their FAQ and:

>The logo is a simple mockup designed to feature the domain name but we do send it to you. We have professional logo designers that can tweak or redo the logo if you are interested. Just email us.

Eh. Glorified domain squatting. It makes you feel good about paying through the nose for bogus "intellectual property".

[alex_c]

Why is it moot? It's a simple logo and you can use it right away. Naming and branding has been a huge headache and/or cost on almost every project I've worked on. Picking something off the shelf that lets you get back to the more important work of building your product is a godsend. It's not for every project, but for smaller projects it's perfect.

[sneak]

Yes, and there's something to be said for "launch now, iterate later". A "good enough" domain/logotype is sufficient for an MVP.

[tptacek]

It's probably sufficient for the long run too. We fetishize this stuff in ways that real customers do not.

[sneak]

FWIW, I chose the name for my company the exact same way Mr. Munroe named xkcd. My logo is a simple (yet awesome) geometric logotype.

[rprasad]

Crucial point you are ignoring: if you do not have the rights to the font, then you do not have the rights to the derivative works based on the font.

A license to use an image does not necessarily include the license to use the elements making up the image.