[QUOTE=kariko;48595601]Wow that looks terrible. Weird how I get used to new logos and then the old one looks wrong. I'm sure way back then I thought the old logo looked better but now it looks terrible, just like that eBay example on the other page.[/QUOTE]
I think it looks fine. Mostly inoffensive. People act like minimalism is a godsend and it's the only sort of 'style' that should be applied to logos and design of everything. In reality, it's just another trend that'll be on it's way out of common use and we'll all think oh wow, that was so boring and flat and ugly one day. Personally, I don't like it, but whether I do or not, it'll be just as out the door as art deco was.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;48595362]One thing I hate to this day is how they changed the Chrome logo.
[IMG]http://agbeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/new-google-chrome-logo-old-google-chrome-logo-before-and-after.jpg[/IMG]
I just like the 3D shiny aesthetic so much better. It was like, something inspired by the mid-y2k shiny-curved-objects-in-UI craze, but at the same time different.
[editline]1st September 2015[/editline]
And it's one of the few things I would like to have as a paperweight.[/QUOTE]
I always thought the old logo looked bad and the new one was a big improvement. I'll be surprised if the shading on the new logo is still there in a year or two though.
sneak preview at google's logo due for 2030
[img]http://i.imgur.com/hgtUiNG.png?1[/img]
[QUOTE=BFG9000;48595362]One thing I hate to this day is how they changed the Chrome logo.
[IMG]http://agbeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/new-google-chrome-logo-old-google-chrome-logo-before-and-after.jpg[/IMG]
I just like the 3D shiny aesthetic so much better. It was like, something inspired by the mid-y2k shiny-curved-objects-in-UI craze, but at the same time different.
[editline]1st September 2015[/editline]
And it's one of the few things I would like to have as a paperweight.[/QUOTE]
That old logo was bad because it doesn't scale down well. Past a certain point it just looks like a blob of colours, while the new one looks like the Chrome logo regardless of size.
Google is pushing hard into the wearable space, they need logos and icons that still look the same when they're tiny.
[QUOTE=skatehawk11;48596279]I am not a fan of all these flat designs that have become popular. I can't stand the new windows editions because they're so flat.[/QUOTE]
It's much nicer to actually work with compared to the skeuomorphic nightmares we've had for the last decade or so. The information you actually need is generally right there on display rather than hidden behind some glossy bullshit or having extravagant animations applied.
Minimalist designs are a lot more than just a trend. They've been quite a leap forward in usability as even a total moron can understand what a big, simple icon means at a glance. Less distractions more information.
[QUOTE=Puvleek;48593522]That lower case 'g' seems familiar...
[img]http://i.imgur.com/ppUNsYN.png[/img]
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/Gmodlogo.svg/1024px-Gmodlogo.svg.png[/t][/QUOTE]
psh, that's nothing
now compare gmod and the guidebook app
[img]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/SUaFqQD2O4-o8ZWOntEqCp9g9uqK-hyIF1XtF877Sj730JW4s1z4l83VQsivrB4ab6U=w300[/img]
Like the new G and dot logos. The Google logo looks clean, so it's no big deal to me.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;48595362]One thing I hate to this day is how they changed the Chrome logo.
[IMG]http://agbeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/new-google-chrome-logo-old-google-chrome-logo-before-and-after.jpg[/IMG]
I just like the 3D shiny aesthetic so much better. It was like, something inspired by the mid-y2k shiny-curved-objects-in-UI craze, but at the same time different.
[editline]1st September 2015[/editline]
And it's one of the few things I would like to have as a paperweight.[/QUOTE]
jesus christ that old logo looks fucking horrible
[QUOTE=smurfy;48595905]I always thought the old logo looked bad and the new one was a big improvement. I'll be surprised if the shading on the new logo is still there in a year or two though.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://logos.wikia.com/wiki/Google_Chrome#2014-present_.28Android.29.2C_2015-present_.28iOS.29]they've already gotten rid of it for the most part[/url]
Someone on /g/ pointed out that it looks really similar to the new Lenovo logo...
[IMG]http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/lenovo_logo_detail.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48596416]It's much nicer to actually work with compared to the skeuomorphic nightmares we've had for the last decade or so. The information you actually need is generally right there on display rather than hidden behind some glossy bullshit or having extravagant animations applied.
Minimalist designs are a lot more than just a trend. They've been quite a leap forward in usability as even a total moron can understand what a big, simple icon means at a glance. Less distractions more information.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. I think it also has to do with the way the world has adapted to using digital interfaces and such. Like, we don't have to add bevels and shading and gloss to things to make them look like they're something physical. Now we show things as they are instead, which is shapes and colors on a computer screen. It's better to design around that
[QUOTE=smurfy;48594769]Logos have to work when displayed on a smartphone screen, you can't make them too complicated[/QUOTE]
Okay, that argument held some ground back when smartphones had resolutions like 320 x 480, but now that we have 1080p screens it's just lazy.
the 2015 chrome logo makes no sense on an android but is somewhat senseful on ios
i would almost hesitate to call it objectively bad
[img]http://i.imgur.com/aAdV2ZQ.png[/img]
what the fuck is this shit
it feels wrong, the google logo has always been "normal letters but then that fancy-ass g" to me :cry:
[editline]1st September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=BFG9000;48595362]One thing I hate to this day is how they changed the Chrome logo.
[IMG]http://agbeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/new-google-chrome-logo-old-google-chrome-logo-before-and-after.jpg[/IMG]
I just like the 3D shiny aesthetic so much better. It was like, something inspired by the mid-y2k shiny-curved-objects-in-UI craze, but at the same time different.
[editline]1st September 2015[/editline]
And it's one of the few things I would like to have as a paperweight.[/QUOTE]
Is it just me or does that old logo look like a kids' toy.
Oh shit, I thought this was a temporary thing like how they change their logo for certain events.
I thought the tiny G in my chrome tab was some kind of adware.
It's fucking ugly
[editline]1st September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=BFG9000;48595362]One thing I hate to this day is how they changed the Chrome logo.
[IMG]http://agbeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/new-google-chrome-logo-old-google-chrome-logo-before-and-after.jpg[/IMG]
I just like the 3D shiny aesthetic so much better. It was like, something inspired by the mid-y2k shiny-curved-objects-in-UI craze, but at the same time different.
[editline]1st September 2015[/editline]
And it's one of the few things I would like to have as a paperweight.[/QUOTE]
This is something they did right
[QUOTE=Mobon1;48596451]psh, that's nothing
now compare gmod and the guidebook app
[img]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/SUaFqQD2O4-o8ZWOntEqCp9g9uqK-hyIF1XtF877Sj730JW4s1z4l83VQsivrB4ab6U=w300[/img][/QUOTE]
"letter in front of a blue square with rounded edges" isn't exactly a unique logo.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Rgql2w9.jpg[/img]
I don't mind it really. The original logo really isn't all that amazing anyway. Its definitely a product of the "serif" age of the 90's. Only reason it felt memorable was because its...Google.
[editline]1st September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Firefox42;48597135]Okay, that argument held some ground back when smartphones had resolutions like 320 x 480, but now that we have 1080p screens it's just lazy.[/QUOTE]
Its the same reason icons, road signs and such are usually made of very simple shapes and one color. They are simple to cognitively process. There's no point in making them complex as they merely meant to represent something. Since a program icon inevitably becomes a UI icon, it makes sense to follow that principle.
[QUOTE=Trixil;48593404][URL="https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl"]They changed the homepage now.[/URL][/QUOTE]
Definitely looks nice, I'm a fan of minimalistic.
[QUOTE=skatehawk11;48596279]I am not a fan of all these flat designs that have become popular. I can't stand the new windows editions because they're so flat.[/QUOTE]
I agree, I'm sort of contemplating going down to Vista just for shits and giggles.
That logo is okay. It doesn't stray away much from the original one, it's just a sans-serif version of it. Reminds me of child books but whatever, I guess that's the point because "Google is so easy to use, a child can do it".
But there are people crying about it already most likely.
I don't have any problems with the logo, but every time i open a new tab, i'm like "what the f-- [I]oh[/I]"
My initial thoughts were of apprehension - resistance to change - then I went back and looked at the history of the Google logo as posted above and my thoughts changed to indifference; stuff changes, whatever. A few hours later I'm leaning back towards being slightly negative again. The serif font had character to it that I feel the new sans serif one doesn't quite have.
[QUOTE=sltungle;48597945]My initial thoughts were of apprehension - resistance to change - then I went back and looked at the history of the Google logo as posted above and my thoughts changed to indifference; stuff changes, whatever. A few hours later I'm leaning back towards being slightly negative again. The serif font had character to it that I feel the new sans serif one doesn't quite have.[/QUOTE]
It only had character to it because it had been associated with Google for so long.
It's literally a generic serif font spelling "Google" without any type of customization or logo design beyond the colors. It's iconic, but there's nothing saying that the new one can't be either.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48597972]It only had character to it because it had been associated with Google for so long.
It's literally a generic serif font spelling "Google" without any type of customization or logo design beyond the colors. It's iconic, but there's nothing saying that the new one can't be either.[/QUOTE]
While this is true, it at least stood out a little more from the modern crowd. The modern push seems to be for flat and sans serif; I was actually totally cool with the transition to the flat logo when it occurred as it looked a lot more crisp and neat, but I feel like flat [I]plus[/I] sans serif is just too 'samey' now.
I just redesigned the logo and look for a British tv show, and ended up taking it in exactly the same direction. This is great for me because I can say "look guys, Google, with their massive design team and millions of dollars, made the same questionable choices as I did. Please don't fire me"
imo they should've made the lowercase g less basic, look at the lowercase g's at the center of this picture:
[t]http://g.fastcompany.net/multisite_files/fastcompany/inline/2015/09/3050613-inline-3050613-slide-s-4-googles-new-logo.jpg[/t]
That g would have given the logo a more defined, unique look that doesn’t scream SF New Republic knockoff.
The new logo is okay, like the old one more because it used a serif font unlike every other logo these days, but the new is fine as well.
Whats not fine is this:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/xxFuyTj.png[/IMG]
It's horrible
The font they use now is Sans-serif. Or a BOLD ARIAL font variant.
[QUOTE=BCell;48598925]The font they use now is Sans-serif. Or a BOLD ARIAL font variant.[/QUOTE]
It's a bespoke font they created, Product Sans.
I think it's funny that everyone's complaining about flat stuff being a trend. It's actually a return to form, the cheesy 3D stuff was actually a break for tradition.
I've already explained this in the other thread, but flat designs have been the default for the past century. The 3D stuff only showed up in the late 90s, and it's been the most short-lived of all design trends.
Personally, I don't mind the return to rational modernism. It's worked for almost a century. It'll work now.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
