Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Designing the Facebook Company Brand

facebook.design

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 238 posts

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#141

Post by thedudeabides5 »

baby wrote: post #43
MuffinFlavored wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the government itching to break up tech companies? I feel like it's a bad idea for them to get involved at all.

Seeing something similar happening in China (CEOs of companies that get large are stepping down and being replaced by party members), I wonder if the US model is similarly threatened by large companies. If you think about it, corruption is legal in the US through lobbies, and the larger and more powerful a company is, the easier it is for the company to influence policies and how the country is being run.

"If you think about it, corruption is legal in the US through lobbies"

Well, whether we go so far as to say lobby = corruption, I think the idea is to bring more transparency and accountability to the general problem.

Any society with free movement of capital is going to have issues with accumulated economic capital impacting politics.

A democratic republic such as the USA hopes to address this issue by formalizing the channels the public can access the government.

Right now I'd give us a 5/10 on that scale.

Where's China on that scale? I don't have enough info to say...

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#142

Post by subpixel »

papln wrote: post #135

All I'm seeing is a monolithic in-your-face all-caps block font that screams BIG BROTHER. Also it's a bit over-spaced and the letters swell outward as though it's puffed up to look extra imposing and dominating the space around itself.

Not just that, it's pulsing in a way that connotes "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that".

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#143

Post by welly »

lostgame wrote: post #40

Would’ve been better, IMHO; to pull an Alphabet and rename the company. This reminds me a little of the ‘Apple TV’ vs. ‘Apple TV’ article running around recently. If Facebook wants to differentiate their company from their service, a rename makes sense and also wouldn’t hurt their reputation when they create new products.

You'd have thought Facebook would have seized the opportunity to rename the company, being as Facebook is an awful name for anything.

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#144

Post by [deleted] »

zaphod4prez wrote: post #108
dmix wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-trust laws are there for economic reasons, ie, monopolies preventing competition leaving society worse-off as a whole than can be gained from efficiencies of a single organization. It also typically requires proof of anti-competitive behaviour, beyond just being the biggest in the market. A lot of companies dominate their markets but don't engage in overt anti-competitive behaviour. I don't think they've ever be…

Your last sentence does not seem right to me, and it also seems to be phrased in a disingenuous way. "punishing companies for not serving some greater democratic service" is a very weird way to describe a legitimate worry about consolidation of private power (which, by the way, has a very long history). Of course, healthy competition & pricing is a core issue here (duh). But power, in all its forms, is also a key iss…

[deleted]

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#145

Post by paxys »

oflannabhra wrote: post #107

I know it is easy to be cynical on these types of "announcements", but I am having a really, really hard time understanding how curved strokes (or any branding decision) can result in empathy or "open space for peoples stories". Empathy is a human characteristic. To think that a word mark can have (or even create ) it is patently ridiculous. In fact, I'd say it cheapens the meaning of the word to the point where true…

It isn't ridiculous at all. Human feelings are very easily influenced by sights and sounds and other external stimuli. Every company out there is fine tuning their brand, advertising, logo, colors etc. to trigger specific emotional responses from you.

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#146

Post by itslennysfault »

namanyayg wrote: post #4

The logo is pretty bland (reminds me of Mark Zuckerburg, actually); but it's definitely a step in the right direction to label all products under the "Facebook" brand. Most people don't even know that Whatsapp and Instagram are all owned by Facebook.

Except that they have negative brand value. Usually when I tell people Whatsapp or IG are owned by FB they start thinking about how to migrate off of those apps.

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#147

Post by celim307 »

goatinaboat wrote: post #123
MuffinFlavored wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate how Facebook/Instagram/Twitter/WhatsApp/Google/Microsoft/Apple are approaching power levels of the government? I know that Facebook + Twitter political ads are "powerful", as well as "fake news" spreading when it is relates to politics. I'd be curious to hear any other examples if you have them.

how Facebook/Instagram/Twitter/WhatsApp/Google/Microsoft/Apple are approaching power levels of the government? Remember Twitter gloating about its role in the Arab Spring? They’re a psychological weapon that can overturn societies overnight. And they’ll do it just for a few more ad clicks.

Not to mention Facebook's libra. The government doesn't look too kindly on you subverting its main method of influence

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#148

Post by kens »

legitster wrote: post #103
Roodgorf wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying that the reason FB is being targeted for anti-trust is that they are simply too successful feels like a vast oversimplification of the situation.

True, but I hear these conversations brought up against every tech company, regardless of what they are doing or why. Amputation may be a valid prescription for a patient, but if amputation is always the prescription, I may assume we are diagnosing wrongly.

Are you saying that breaking up the company is always the action from an antitrust case? That's entirely wrong. See for instance the antitrust actions against IBM leading to the 1936 consent decree and the 1956 consent decree, which changed IBM's behavior but didn't break up the company.

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#149

Post by papln »

itsmhuang wrote: post #10
kgraves wrote: post #2

> ...People should know which companies make the products they use. I agree with this. This is a good gesture of FB warning new and current users signing up/using the service with a screaming all caps logo, given the amount of spying, data mishaps and misinformation reputation they are slowly accruing over the years. Other than that, this logo looks corporate enough that it should fit nicely with Facebook Workplace's…

They aren't acting on their own accord. This is fueled by a new law that companies must clearly disclose what subsidiaries they own.

What law is that, and how does it dictate branding, and how does a curved K disclose anything?
Post reply on HN