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

201–210 of 238 posts

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#201

Post by zepto »

trowawee wrote: post #118
legitster wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No you don't. No one is pushing to break up Basecamp, or LinkedIn, or even companies that have actual documented histories of anticompetitive practices, like Oracle. I haven't even heard much chatter about breaking up Apple, altho that might ramp up as they move farther away from hardware into services and other areas. The conversation centers around FB, Google, and Amazon, for reasons that are unique to each of them…

Elizabeth Warren has officially listed Apple as a company to break up.

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#203

Post by postsantum »

petepete wrote: post #169
voldacar wrote: post #150

> The brand comes to life in the context of people, cultures, communities and relationships. What does this even mean? What kind of human could even write such a sentence?

Still got nothing on Pepsi https://www.goldennumber.net/wp-content/uploads/pepsi-arnell...

Any context? Is it a real document or a parody?

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#204

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

dmix wrote: post #50
pron wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because democratic societies generally dislike so much power concentrated in the hands of undemocratic institutions.

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…

> It also typically requires proof of anti-competitive behaviour, beyond just being the biggest in the market.

That wasn't always true. The US was once fond of trust- busting.

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#205

Post by robbrown451 »

rhizome wrote: post #165
robbrown451 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a defense, but the fact that many incorrectly think of them as separate entities can be an aggravating factor. Just because Google doesn't have that specific aggravating factor and there is still a question of whether they have monopoly power, doesn't mean that said aggravating factor doesn't count for something.

But antitrust remedies are all about single companies, aren't they?

I'm not sure how that is relevant to what I said. Can you explain?

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#206

Post by robbrown451 »

qubex wrote: post #187
robbrown451 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because many voters think that they would be better off if the government enforced antitrust law more strongly in this area. Most agree it was effective when the government broke up Standard Oil, and when they broke up AT&T, among others. Microsoft was not broken up (although it got really close), but they sure got a slap, partly from the EU. And they changed their behavior, rather dramatically, for the better in the…

The reason why the EU “slapped” Microsoft is instructive though: in a nutshell, the argument was as follows: it is so big that it can crowd out other smaller competitors because it can offer products for almost free (because their marginal cost is basically zero) whereas starting up and/or sustaining a small competitor (perhaps with a subset of functionality, for a lower TCO) is more expensive. Since producers are (a…

Yeah and it is also a net negative for consumers if the big company offering things for almost free stops innovating once their competition goes away.

Personally I think that free markets just don't work with products that are zero marginal cost. I don't necessarily have a solution, but it sure seems like the rules just don't work well anymore.

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#207

Post by d--b »

I am not a design person and I usually think that design people know what they’re doing. My opinion about design is usually as good as that of a 5-year-old looking at a Picasso.

But, am I the only one to think that this is not very good? Shortening the name to its equity ticker? What kind of message does that send to your users? But beyond that, it’s all caps in a font that’s really not original. Is that all?

This looks like it was made by a cheap automatic logo design app...

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#209

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

robbrown451 wrote: post #139
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.

Because many voters think that they would be better off if the government enforced antitrust law more strongly in this area. Most agree it was effective when the government broke up Standard Oil, and when they broke up AT&T, among others. Microsoft was not broken up (although it got really close), but they sure got a slap, partly from the EU. And they changed their behavior, rather dramatically, for the better in the…

I wish there was a corporate progressive tax, such that if you're business profit is between $0-$1M you pay no tax, and once your income gets into the tens of billions (in profit), the effective tax rate is over 50%. The big companies would just break themselves up to take advantage of the taxes.

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#210

Post by Jack000 »

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's fine to critique the implementation of a brand, but it doesn't change the fact that branding has real tangible value. If they don't use a curvy wordmark, it would have to be some other arbitrary mark.

for reference, the coca cola brand is worth an estimated 57 billion USD, and at the end of the day it is just a curvy font and some colors. It's worth at least a few million to maximize brand recognition by choosing the right curvy font.

Post reply on HN