NeXT Logo Presentation by Paul Rand to Steve Jobs [pdf]
jacobmorse.com
NeXT Logo Presentation by Paul Rand to Steve Jobs [pdf]
1–10 of 44 posts
Re: NeXT Logo Presentation by Paul Rand to Steve Jobs [pdf]
#2Fascinating document. I always wondered if these well-worded explanations and positionings in historical context serve to get the logo accepted by biasing the reader, or if they genuinely add something. In other words, I wonder if the same logo, supported by a different document, will lead to a different answer by the client. Given all the work that's obviously been put into this document, I suspect it does matter.
As an entrepreneur, I will endeavour to be presented the logo of my project in the same light and context that my customers will see it, and not with a heavy serving of storytelling, as that can only make things worse for my poor brain when it comes to choosing.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to read the context and process that led to the design, but only after I've made a choice.
Re: NeXT Logo Presentation by Paul Rand to Steve Jobs [pdf]
#3Amazing to see what Steve Jobs paid $100K for.
What's interesting is that because the logo was based on the black cube it actually would have forced the hardware to be in that configuration. Even though at the time the engineers were having a nightmare of a time trying to get components to fit inside it. If the logo was different then you could've seen the NeXT hardware in a different shape at a much lower price point. This then could've positioned them much better against Sun and SGI.
Makes you wonder if this logo never existed would Jobs have ever ended up back at Apple and turned it into the company it is today.
Re: NeXT Logo Presentation by Paul Rand to Steve Jobs [pdf]
#4I remember when reading the Steve jobs biography I got very excited about the next logo and had to put down the book to look it up.
I was very disappointed.
Re: NeXT Logo Presentation by Paul Rand to Steve Jobs [pdf]
#5I remember when reading the Steve jobs biography I got very excited about the next logo and had to put down the book to look it up. I was very disappointed.
We really liked back when NeXT was a thing.
Re: NeXT Logo Presentation by Paul Rand to Steve Jobs [pdf]
#6I remember when reading the Steve jobs biography I got very excited about the next logo and had to put down the book to look it up. I was very disappointed.
We really liked back when NeXT was a thing.
And we thought it was the ugliest part of absilutely stunning machine. It had zero correlation with the product and stuck out like a sore thumb.
Re: NeXT Logo Presentation by Paul Rand to Steve Jobs [pdf]
#7The NeXT logo probably would not be the choice today as it doesn't scale down small enough for favicons, mobile screens and so on.
However, nobody really ever got to see a NeXT machine apart from Tim Berners Lee. The web really was 'next' so it all worked out well in the end.
Re: NeXT Logo Presentation by Paul Rand to Steve Jobs [pdf]
#8In the trade we call this "post-rationalisation" and it's worse than worthless, it magically adds value to the worthless.
Good design, especially good logo design, is self evident and doesn't need this kind of drivle.
Also, it's objectivley a bad logo. Always has been. Always will be. It makes me angrier than it should, but that's why designers design I suppose.
Re: NeXT Logo Presentation by Paul Rand to Steve Jobs [pdf]
#9In the trade we call this "post-rationalisation" and it's worse than worthless, it magically adds value to the worthless. Good design, especially good logo design, is self evident and doesn't need this kind of drivle. Also, it's objectivley a bad logo. Always has been. Always will be. It makes me angrier than it should, but that's why designers design I suppose.
Why is it objectively bad? Logos are pretty subjective things.
Re: NeXT Logo Presentation by Paul Rand to Steve Jobs [pdf]
#10In the trade we call this "post-rationalisation" and it's worse than worthless, it magically adds value to the worthless. Good design, especially good logo design, is self evident and doesn't need this kind of drivle. Also, it's objectivley a bad logo. Always has been. Always will be. It makes me angrier than it should, but that's why designers design I suppose.
Why is it objectively bad? Logos are pretty subjective things.
Won't scale well, will unbalance anything it's put on or put along side of.
Subjectively- color pallets is awful. Font choice is poor.
In my view Paul Rand was never a "great" designer, just a prolific one.