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

What should a logo for NeXT look like? (1986)

paulrand.design

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 115 posts

Re: What should a logo for NeXT look like? (1986)

#51

Post by chefandy »

meerita wrote: post #15

I loved—and still love—this logo. Maybe it's because we have a gazillion startups and companies now, so every single logo looks the same to me. These old logos have spirit and personality.

Well, logos are a mode of communication that tell people what your brand is. Your brand should represent what you are, and to whom. Startups need to have "branding" in place to solicit investment, and they don't really have any idea what their company will mean to anybody, let alone their core demographic; they don't even know who their core demographic will be. So, every logo ends up trying to say "We are a credible and stable software company run by adults, but with energy and optimism" and the audience is California venture capitalists.

Re: What should a logo for NeXT look like? (1986)

#53

Post by Clamchop »

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #44
joezydeco wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AT&T corporation was massive back then. These folks were looking at rebranding every piece of equipment in the country, it wasn't going to be a cheap adventure. Bass did the right thing by making them comfortable with the cost.

I met a designer at Verizon once, asked what the hell the deal with their logo was. He acknowledged that it was rock-bottom, worst-of-the-worst grade… and said that their own internal studies indicated a multi-billion dollar project just to change all the signs. Like, just look at that one sign overlooking the east river in NYC. That logo’s gonna be around forever.

Incidentally, I went to their website to remind myself what the logo looked like, only to see that it has changed!

Re: What should a logo for NeXT look like? (1986)

#54

Post by petesergeant »

Scene_Cast2 wrote: post #10

I might be in the minority, but the NeXT logo never looked good to me - there's something off with projection of the cube.

I feel like it’s only good by collective agreement rather than any underlying merit. I wonder how many people would like it if they were told it was an idea a junior PM had put together as a holding pattern for a never-released Google product. Would it get the same level of adoration?

Re: What should a logo for NeXT look like? (1986)

#58

Post by blazers777 »

petesergeant wrote: post #54
Scene_Cast2 wrote: post #10

I might be in the minority, but the NeXT logo never looked good to me - there's something off with projection of the cube.

I feel like it’s only good by collective agreement rather than any underlying merit. I wonder how many people would like it if they were told it was an idea a junior PM had put together as a holding pattern for a never-released Google product. Would it get the same level of adoration?

back in the day, during a talk about Westinghouse, we were all admiring Rand's striking and iconic Westinghouse Logo, the theory and precision behind it.

A little boy pointed at it and said "That logo is dumb."

And it was at that instant that we all suddenly realized that it was a pretty bad logo. We moved on to the next topic quickly after that.

Re: What should a logo for NeXT look like? (1986)

#59

Post by slater »

blazers777 wrote: post #58
petesergeant wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like it’s only good by collective agreement rather than any underlying merit. I wonder how many people would like it if they were told it was an idea a junior PM had put together as a holding pattern for a never-released Google product. Would it get the same level of adoration?

back in the day, during a talk about Westinghouse, we were all admiring Rand's striking and iconic Westinghouse Logo, the theory and precision behind it. A little boy pointed at it and said "That logo is dumb." And it was at that instant that we all suddenly realized that it was a pretty bad logo. We moved on to the next topic quickly after that.

Well, if a little boy said it, might as well agree with him!

Re: What should a logo for NeXT look like? (1986)

#60

Post by petesergeant »

blazers777 wrote: post #58
petesergeant wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like it’s only good by collective agreement rather than any underlying merit. I wonder how many people would like it if they were told it was an idea a junior PM had put together as a holding pattern for a never-released Google product. Would it get the same level of adoration?

back in the day, during a talk about Westinghouse, we were all admiring Rand's striking and iconic Westinghouse Logo, the theory and precision behind it. A little boy pointed at it and said "That logo is dumb." And it was at that instant that we all suddenly realized that it was a pretty bad logo. We moved on to the next topic quickly after that.

I feel like the difference between art and design is that you shouldn't need to know any of the back story for design, it should just look right, even if the lay person can't quite tell you why it looks right. Nobody needs the backstory on the Nike tick. You don't need to be told that the lines on the FedEx logo are beautifully balanced.
Post reply on HN