A bit plain but I like it. The previous one was dated-looking.
Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987
61–70 of 243 posts
Re: Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987
#62Are those the Google colors?
Re: Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987
#63I can see the anti-Apple mentality of this. Apple icons are glossy this is flat. The icons on an iPad/iPod are small glossy "chicklets" but on Win8 they are flat and large tiles; no black space. I like the look and the design it's a nice change, as for the inner workings of the OS I have no idea since I only used it briefly in a (non-touchscreen) VM.
Different to Apple != anti-Apple
I think it is a tremendous disservice to the amount of work that went into the Metro (or whatever it's called now) interface to describe it as an anti-Apple reaction. It isn't, and not everyone in the tech world bases their entire business around what Apple is or is not doing. It wasn't created to spite the memory of Steve Jobs.
Re: Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987
#64The logo from the 70's is so disco.
Re: Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987
#65"The new logo, which incorporates a multicolored Windows symbol in addition to the "Microsoft" name in straightforward, lighter type, is intended to "signal the heritage but also signal the future — a newness and freshness," said Jeff Hansen, Microsoft's general manager of brand strategy."
Freshness? The most underwhelming design "innovation" yet... Playing it safe, boring, square as ever.
Re: Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987
#66The colours remind me just a little bit of Google..
Re: Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987
#67You know the greatest lesson I learned from the tv show The Wire? When your brand lacks credibility you make a change to the brand.[1][2] Good move by Microsoft. On other hand, I'm still trying to grok why Twitter changed it's logo recently[3]? Was something inherently being tarnished about the Twitter brand? As far as I know, the answer is NO. I'm going to make a major assumption here, but I think it had to do with…
Microsoft isn't changing their brand, they're updating their brand. It's something virtually every company does from time to time, and it's not a sign of the apocalypse. Microsoft isn't escaping any of their past with this change, they're still very recognizable as the same company as before.
Your assumptions about the reason for updating a brand are even wronger in the case of Twitter. They didn't update their brand because it was weak, quite the opposite. The twitter brand is currently so strong, it afforded them the unique opportunity to drop the words from their trademark and use just an icon. Twitter's rebranding was them stepping up to an exclusive club of the worlds most highly recognizable brands.
Re: Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987
#68Jokingly: That logo cost them $50 [1] My real questions are whether there will be a one-color variant, whether the symbol will be allowed to be displayed without the type, and how you could ever secure international trademark on four squares. My guess is that you'd have to be, well, Mircosoft. More than the logo designers, I'm really impressed by the legal team. My trademark lawyers would laugh at me. [1] http://www.…
Should I make a FourSquare reference? I'm just amazed that the colours are a rotation of Google's Favicon... Red Green Blue Yellow. (Alright so it's orange, not red.) https://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&site=imgh... Is there any way to get a compressed google search URL that's not a redirect?
I was thinking logo may be more appropriate to FourSquare as well.
Re: Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987
#69Wow, microsoft.com looks like shit on iOS with a Retina display. Couldn't be bothered?
[deleted]
Re: Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean the one that utterly dominated the computer market and made money by the truckload when other companies could barely survive? Well, at least that's over now.
> made money by the truckload when other companies > could barely survive The other companies would probably have fared better of Microsoft wasn't dominating the market. This phrasing makes it sound like the market wasn't a zero-sum game.
The market wasn't then, and isn't now, zero-sum.
Microsoft's domination was achieved by making passable-to-excellent browsers in the beginning and putting them on the desktop, which made the web more accessible to millions of people, boosted commerce, and pushed feature development forward much more quickly than Netscape (or any company) would have done absent competition. Bigger market, bigger pie, more investment, more jobs, more consumers.
Netscape died, of course. But it didn't have to be that way; and Microsoft won far more than Netscape lost.