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

Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987

seattletimes.nwsource.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 243 posts

Re: Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987

#111

Post by untog »

mbesto wrote: post #104
untog wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So when Apple change their name from Apple Computers it was because they lacked credibility? No, of course not. But because it's Microsoft everyone throws this nonsense around. Rebranding is something that all companies do at varying times their lives. When you haven't done it in 25 years... yeah, it's probably time for a refresh. Trends change.

You really think a business person with real money on the line makes a dramatic change like this based on the notion of "When you haven't done it in 25 years... yeah, it's probably time for a refresh. Trends change." That would be mind baffling...

No, but I think that a business person with real money they spend on market research that says "people perceive the logo as old and out of fashion" might decide it was time for a refresh.

Re: Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987

#112

Post by draggnar »

I think MSFT is starting to get a little obsessed with the boxes - excuse me "tiles". I went to the store opening today in Boston, and I was pretty impressed. Very clean, bright, lots of screens.. made the Apple store across the street seem very conservative. We'll see if it ends up being a hit, but it is definitely standing alone as it's own unique store experience.

Re: Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987

#113

Post by mbesto »

notatoad wrote: post #67
mbesto wrote: post #26

You 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…

> Microsoft isn't changing their brand, they're updating their brand.

Semantics.

> it's not a sign of the apocalypse.

I'm sorry if I implied it's a sign of the apocalypse. I didn't mean it that way. The point is Microsoft has suffered greatly due to the massive success of Apple. This is no news to anyone. They're not going to die anytime soon, but they have a MASSIVE threat. The Wire's portrayal of the character's brand and that of Worldcom, are not a 1:1 match, I agree, but the theory is the same.

My point was to draw the real reasoning behind branding and why companies shift and update brands. I've personally been trapped in this before, and thought "God that logo looks like shit! That company, or my company, should change it! They would do so much better if they did!" Branding/Logo is about associations of an image with the company and its values. When the values of the company deteriorate, lack credibility, etc, than the association of the logo starts portraying those negative values (or lack thereof).

For example: How many people here think Google should change it's logo? The logo itself lacks any sort of design principles and very clearly was created by a techie with lack of graphic design. So why on earth hasn't Google changed it?

> Your assumptions about the reason for updating a brand are even wronger in the case of Twitter.Twitter's rebranding was them stepping up to an exclusive club of the worlds most highly recognizable brands.

I apologize, I wasn't aware that the logo before explicitly included the name. Regardless...

> Twitter's rebranding was them stepping up to an exclusive club of the worlds most highly recognizable brands.

8 of the top 10 brands in the world have their name in their logo...[1] What exclusive club are you talking about?

[1] - http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/07/top_brands/source/1....

Re: Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987

#115

Post by parkov »

buro9 wrote: post #44

For me... personally, the logo doesn't work. I am slightly colour blind. The logo in the article I see just fine, and all of the squares are the same size. And I get it... Metro theme. The favicon.ico and small logo on Microsoft.com Those don't fair as well. The red and yellow squares are much larger than the green and blue, and my eyes see a throbbing line around the bottom and left of the red box, and a black line…

I'm not color blind, but I see the same thing. Shading creates the effect of the boxes being different sizes even though they're not. Here's a screenshot:

https://twitter.com/thomashpark/status/238665017145303040/ph...

Re: Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987

#116

Post by mbesto »

untog wrote: post #111
mbesto wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really think a business person with real money on the line makes a dramatic change like this based on the notion of "When you haven't done it in 25 years... yeah, it's probably time for a refresh. Trends change." That would be mind baffling...

No, but I think that a business person with real money they spend on market research that says "people perceive the logo as old and out of fashion" might decide it was time for a refresh.

> people perceive the logo as old and out of fashion

So, I think we both agree, the original logo lacks the previous associations of value and therefore needed to be changed/updated. People don't buy things because of a lack of newness or because they are deemed old. They buy based on utility (whether that's perceived or not is another question).

Re: Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987

#118

Post by jlgreco »

debacle wrote: post #76
jlgreco wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many of those things owe their success to goodwill people have to the Microsoft brand?

Do people buy MacBooks out of goodwill to Apple, or because they're kickass hardware?

I am not sure how that is relevant to be honest. Are you saying that there brand doesn't matter, or that it is healthy because their products have found success due to technical achievements?

Re: Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987

#120

Post by SoftwareMaven »

[The logo] is intended to "signal the heritage but also signal the future — a newness and freshness".

Does every marketing exec have to say that about their new logo? Must be the same effect as sports players saying "We just gave it 110%" when they win.

Post reply on HN