111–120 of 447 posts
Here is an example:
http://www.atarimania.com/2600/boxes/hi_res/yars_revenge_col...
(look at the first line, with its slanted e -- like the last e in Google.)
More observations on Atari Abahaus here:
http://atariage.com/forums/topic/164954-deans-foods-using-at...
2008 HN discussion from when the outgoing "little blue g" favicon was introduced: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=211518 In it, Dustin Curtis criticizes Google (rather rightly, in my hindsight-enhanced opinion) for a Marissa-Mayeresque design process of "Make 300 logo variants with pseudorandom permutations, and then pick your favorite." Looking at those permutations now ( http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7ZYqYi4xigk/S…
The new favicon is way better IMO. On the other hand, the main logo... I think this sums it up: "seem as much like a preschool as humanly possible". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10153449 I'm just not a fan of extremely flat designs.
I love it. Quite often logo redesign processes gets completely out of hand, but this was a significant improvement over the older version: Cleaner, more modern and beautiful in all its simplicity. Bravo!
I don't like it. It seems more juvenile in the same way comic sans gets criticized for. The loss of character on the lower case g is especially unfortunate. Non est disputandum I guess.
I'll be the first one to say it: I liked the older better. There was literally nothing wrong with it, it did not look dated at all.
We've been using the new logo internally for a week. Give it a day, and then go back and look at the old logo, and then tell me how dated it looks.
I'm curious how Brand New will rate it.
I'll be the first one to say it: I liked the older better. There was literally nothing wrong with it, it did not look dated at all.
Uncharitably, I'd say the old logo looked much more professional, and so didn't jive with Google's corporate ethos of "seem as much like a preschool as humanly possible". The new one definitely fits better in that respect.
That looks like Bauhaus font, that used to be so common for all things Atari. Here is an example: http://www.atarimania.com/2600/boxes/hi_res/yars_revenge_col... (look at the first line, with its slanted e -- like the last e in Google.) More observations on Atari Abahaus here: http://atariage.com/forums/topic/164954-deans-foods-using-at...
2008 HN discussion from when the outgoing "little blue g" favicon was introduced: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=211518 In it, Dustin Curtis criticizes Google (rather rightly, in my hindsight-enhanced opinion) for a Marissa-Mayeresque design process of "Make 300 logo variants with pseudorandom permutations, and then pick your favorite." Looking at those permutations now ( http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7ZYqYi4xigk/S…
The new favicon is way better IMO. On the other hand, the main logo... I think this sums it up: "seem as much like a preschool as humanly possible". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10153449 I'm just not a fan of extremely flat designs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They actually give a reason why they changed it in the blog post. Saying that the old one was designed for desktops and the new one is meant to scale better (for things like watches and phones I'd guess). Edit: to add from their design blog[0], the new logo can be sent to a client in 305 bytes of compressed SVG (vs 14,000 bytes for the old logo). So it helps with lower bandwidth. The design post also mentions scaling…
Yes, anytime there is a logo change there is a bunch of marketing talk about why. It's all bullshit. At the end of the day it was because someone wanted to make their mark and got a chance to do it. A tweaked logo won't affect Google's outcome one iota. And it will be slightly changed in another couple of years by some new VP who wants to shake things up and get that next promotion.
Anything them there MBA-types do is bullshit, am I right? In fact, I have no idea why Google doesn't run from the command line only!
I'm sure glad to have HN around to tell me how most of the machinations of a large global corporation are pointless.
By the way, do you have one shred of evidence that this was a VP looking to get promoted?
