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

The Next Microsoft

minimallyminimal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 355 posts

Re: The Next Microsoft

#171

Post by sp332 »

yaix wrote: post #153
sp332 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Upvoting a comment is an anonymous and nearly invisible action. The only way to show visible support for a comment is to reply to it.

What you call "visible support" is really only "polluting the comments". "Me too" posts just fill up the comments with text without substance. See also: * Feb 1983 First "Me too" post ( http://www.google.com/googlegroups/archive_announce_20.html )

On Disqus, Google+, Facebook, and most other sites supporting "likes", you can see who upvoted your comment. But this site is missing that built-in functionality.

Re: The Next Microsoft

#172

Post by marshray »

jiggity wrote: post #105
programminggeek wrote: post #6

This is great. It will never work. A brand has to reflect the culture of how a product is made, sold, experienced, etc... Microsoft is not about simplicity, it's about feature creep. Microsoft sells software and licenses to big companies. Big companies don't want simple, they want value for their money - features! A better brand promise would be Microsoft - It Does Everything! Look at Windows 8. Is it going metro onl…

If this design makes you uneasy and go "But that's not Microsoft!", slap your gut and tell it to listen because that's just the branding talking. Take a step back and recognize that EVERY emotion you feel about Microsoft is arbitrary. Branding is just the mental handle we use to talk about the automatic emotions we get. That is the tough part about branding: it happens unconsciously. It is that surge of instantaneous…

> EVERY emotion you feel about Microsoft is arbitrary. Branding is just the mental handle we use to talk about the automatic emotions we get.

That might be true for companies that are completely unimportant, but many of us have seen whole careers, companies, and industries rise and fall on the movements of Microsoft.

As a relatively small example, when Microsoft tried to lock my family out of our home PC using and accused us of being software pirates that brought up some emotions that were certainly not arbitrary.

Re: The Next Microsoft

#173

Post by ender7 »

bascule wrote: post #169
ender7 wrote: post #167

So, I'm not a huge fan, but definitely an interesting attempt. Some commentary, because why not: - As others have noted, the "moonshot" imagery is a good idea and manages to seem classic and futuristic at the same time. - The wordmark is a little cliche (lowercase sans wooo), but it looks okay. I like the beveled foot of the t, which provides echoes of the slanted logo, but feel like it's just an afterthought right n…

"The derived logos (Windows, Office) are a little confusing. Why is windows two slates? Why are the slates fighting in Office?" Apparently you missed what I thought were some pretty awesome visual metaphors: * "Why is windows two slates?" there are two of them, hence Window s plural * "Why are the slates fighting in Office?" They look like the walls of an office (the transparency helps with the 3D illusion)

You know what they say about a joke that you have to explain...

Re: The Next Microsoft

#174

Post by potatolicious »

jessedhillon wrote: post #168
potatolicious wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This can go either way. Remember when dcurtis did a unsolicited spec redesign for the American Airlines website? We here at HN tore him a new one (justifiably so, it ignored so many critical aspects of the business, and came off as entirely impractical). When you do something like this, you better be sure you nail every single angle of it. FWIW, I normally hate spec redesigns - they're usually positioned in a pompous…

Nobody cares what HN thinks.

... Then what are you doing in these here comments?

Re: The Next Microsoft

#175

Post by X-Istence »

jdjiaikej wrote: post #92
jdjiaikej wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the second one? Edit: never mind. Its Square Up. Found it on the second page of a Google Image Search.

Right. I found it. Probably not the best example of a ubiquitous company with an instantly recognizable logo, unless it was just a joke.

With the website you are on it is highly likely that many people would instantly recognize the logo. Maybe not the general population, but here, definitely.

Re: The Next Microsoft

#176

Post by WiseWeasel »

The only thing that strikes me as in poor taste is the choice of colors for the new palette. His monitor must have really low saturation, because a few of those colors look pretty bad on mine. The light grey looks dull and dirty, and the contrast with the text is insufficient on the light blue and orange backgrounds, both of which are too bright to be comfortable; though they might be fine with dark grey text instead of white. It's really hard to find a light blue and light orange/yellow that looks good as a solid background for text on a wide range of displays, and white text on a light background is just asking for trouble.

Other than that, this is some fine work. Microsoft should hire this guy to replace the person currently in charge of branding, marketing and packaging design (or invent that position and make all those people report to him).

Re: The Next Microsoft

#177

Post by bascule »

ender7 wrote: post #173
bascule wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The derived logos (Windows, Office) are a little confusing. Why is windows two slates? Why are the slates fighting in Office?" Apparently you missed what I thought were some pretty awesome visual metaphors: * "Why is windows two slates?" there are two of them, hence Window s plural * "Why are the slates fighting in Office?" They look like the walls of an office (the transparency helps with the 3D illusion)

You know what they say about a joke that you have to explain...

Oh really?

http://inagorillacostume.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Amaz...

http://pictures.mastermarf.com/blog/2009/090113-fedex-expres...

Re: The Next Microsoft

#178

Post by marshray »

alberich wrote: post #130
jasomill wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why "Microsoft" and not "MICROSOFT"? I emphatically disagree that capitalization is merely a matter of opinion, as it can have significant ramifications in both readability [1] and trademark law, especially where marks like 'Word', 'Windows', 'Excel', 'Outlook', and 'Surface' (or 'Apple', 'Pages', 'Keynote', and 'Numbers'; or 'Android'; or 'Oracle', 'Sun', and 'Java'; or ...) are concerned. [1] http://blogs.msdn.com/…

I agree that capitalization is not mere opinion. I was asking why not capitalize a name? Makes Microsoft sounds like some stuff, not some business.

To me the intentional lack of capitalization always seemed a little bit pretentious. It's not a big deal and I'm probably just feeling old-fashioned, but I still wonder if it's just a passing fad.

Re: The Next Microsoft

#179

Post by tammer »

kitsune_ wrote: post #67

This design is Orwellian in nature. In the current age of global wars, international terrorism, financial turmoil, outsourced labor, awakening behemoths (China), increasing corruption, people fear the future. Look at Apple, classic 1960's space age retro. Look at Instagram. Cozy and nostalgic polaroid filters. If I designed for the future, I'd take hints from the past. A key difference is that in the past, different…

As much as I love the mockup, in the end I probably agree.

Microsoft's core branding strength in the consumer market is its "genericness". Look at the new homepage - very standard US families using MS products. While Apple's aesthetic appeals to millions and millions, to some it comes off as elitist and/or flashy. As unusual as it seems to say this, MS may be doing well by pushing their bland mostly-business-but-you-can-go-on-facebook-on-it-too branding - many americans could assimilate the mockup's intended message and react negatively. People want cheap crap that doesn't make them think too hard.

Microsoft's current branding is unexciting (read: safe, reassuring) for very specific reasons.

Post reply on HN