Now there is a story... On the website I work on we had some horrid typography.com font loaded, which was theoretically a good idea, once upon a time. Since this is a legacy site I work on with whomever having worked on it before, I realised that there was no significant content using this font, in fact it was only in email templates (not that email does web fonts). So I ripped the little blighter out.
I added in some 'lookalike' fonts from Google in the places where the typography.com font should have been, all looked improved, everything worked.
But then we hire some new clowns to do some new theme. Obviously I am typecast as a 'backend dev' so I was not privy to whatever those conversations were. So the typography.com font is back in use! Fantastic (not)!!!
So the same process that led to the last awful frontend (get some agency that don't care about our product to project manage something to death) results in the reappearance of the same awful font technology.
That sir is how typography.com still get customers. The marketing people, the managers that have no technical skills, the print designer and some outside agency just do it even though (four months earlier) the only coder in the building speeded up the site and made it vaguely legible by getting rid of the silly typography.com junk.
I am very much a believer in design which is content first and, as Steve Jobs said, 'how it works'. I too like a good font and always inspect a page where the typography stands out as I like to be informed on font names and combinations. I am also a believer in going for AA accessibility. Obviously the typography.com font will be spidery grey text against a grey background, not accessible!