Google Changes Logo

And...? by sanf780 · 2015-09-02 05:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

I sometimes see just gibberish, dark marketing gibberish.

Re:And...? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 07:31 · Score: 0

ikr, google changed their logo?! Stop the fucking presses!
Re:And...? by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2015-09-02 09:09 · Score: 2

I guess we should be happy that they didn't use Comic Sans.....

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Re:And...? by arglebargle_xiv · 2015-09-02 17:01 · Score: 1

I sometimes see just gibberish, dark marketing gibberish.
"I see marketers talking gibberish. They walk around like regular people. They don't see each other. They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're talking gibberish. They're everywhere".

Phew! by grub · 2015-09-02 05:55 · Score: 5, Funny

I looked at Google last night and fell off my chair when I saw a differnet, yet oddly familiar, logo. Many dozens of other news outfits were reporting on it, but I waited until I saw the story on Slashdot to confirm it.

Slashdot is to logo confirmation as Netcraft is to BSD's death confirmation.

--
Trolling is a art,

Re:Phew! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 06:21 · Score: 0

Slashdot has confirmed: Google is dying.
One more crippling typeface hit the already beleaguered Alphabet subsidiary when Slashdot confirmed that the Google logo has changed its typeface yet again, now using less than a fraction of 1 percent of all serifs. Coming on the heels of a recent Slashdot poll which plainly states that CowboyNeal has more sense of design, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Google is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent slightly-slanted-e comprehensive rotation test.

I don't see anything different. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 05:56 · Score: 1

So they changed the font? Is it going to make any difference at all? Convince one more person to use a google service? This is not newsworthy, or even marketing worthy.

Re:I don't see anything different. by Rei · 2015-09-02 06:07 · Score: 2

The old one wasn't Comic-Sans-y enough.
They still need to add bad kerning, however.

--
Stale pastry is hollow succor to one who is bereft of ostrich.
Re:I don't see anything different. by xevioso · 2015-09-02 06:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

No, a major branding change of the internet's arguably most powerful or important company is news.
WHY did they change it? That is news for nerds.
They changed it because serif fonts are hard to read at different resolutions and don't scale well on small devices...like phones and watches.
Non-serif fonts do scale well.
Thus, news for nerds.
Re:I don't see anything different. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 06:35 · Score: 0

But that's just it--it's *google*. No one that sees it, no matter what font, nor what size, nor how well it is rendered is confused as to what company it indicates because it's already ubiquitous. They've already won the branding challenge--their brand is a *verb* for hell's sake--it doesn't get any better than that. Changing the font now just because it renders poorly on some small devices does *nothing* to further promote it--they've already achieved saturation.
Thus, *not* newsworthy.
Re:I don't see anything different. by alexhs · 2015-09-02 06:41 · Score: 1

The old one wasn't Comic-Sans-y enough.
They still need to add bad kerning, however.
Yes, and Facebook did the same two months ago.
In related news, Donald Knuth has been heard saying that he was starting to work on a new social website and a new web search engine.

--
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Re:I don't see anything different. by xevioso · 2015-09-02 06:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

That's actually not true. Companies often rebrand themselves, not to further get more traction and get more users, but to retain the ones they have. If a company is perceived as being old or stodgy, then people are more likely to gravitate to companies that don't appear that way. This is doubly true in the tech sector.
But more to your point, as the article states, Google is by no means done trying to get more users; it's now all about getting users in developing countries. And making sure their logo looks peachy on a tiny African or Asian cell phone is in fact actually important for branding.
Re:I don't see anything different. by flex941 · 2015-09-02 07:08 · Score: 1

Yes, there is a difference. Now the logo lacks elegance. Elegant-y people not welcome anymore by Google. The masses make a better customer in the long run.
Re:I don't see anything different. by execthis · 2015-09-02 07:19 · Score: 1

Its still way too Romper Room-ey
Re:I don't see anything different. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 07:32 · Score: 0

Why? Because buying decisions are made based on how nifty/clear a logo renders?
Who are these people that make decisions this way?
Re:I don't see anything different. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 07:34 · Score: 0

People who don't use google will check it out, and download a google tracking cookie in the process.
Re:I don't see anything different. by Dins · 2015-09-02 07:39 · Score: 1

Romper bomper stomper boo
(And yes the new logo is like Romper Room and Comic Sans had an illicit affair, giving birth to this childish monstrosity of a logo.)
Re:I don't see anything different. by pla · 2015-09-02 08:03 · Score: 1

They changed it because serif fonts are hard to read at different resolutions and don't scale well on small devices...like phones and watches.

At 60pt, they could write it in frickin' Viner Hand for all it matters and people would still have no trouble recognizing it even on the tiniest of screens.

On an iPhone 5, for example, it literally spans a good inch and a half, and roughly a third that height. "Hard to read" just doesn't apply.
Re:I don't see anything different. by Anubis+IV · 2015-09-02 08:10 · Score: 1

Google has already changed its logo at least a half dozen times in its short history, including changing the color of the G outright from green to blue. This is the third tweak to their logo in the last five years alone (though it is, admittedly, the biggest one). Hardly newsworthy.
Moreover, your suggested "why" makes no sense at all. You're quite correct that serif fonts don't do so well at "different resolutions" (more specifically, at lower resolutions), but we're at the point where an HD resolution is considered the bar for entry with new devices, and resolutions are getting better and better each year (e.g. the phone with a 4K resolution screen that Sony announced today). On the other hand, when it comes to readability at smaller text sizes--like what you might find on mobile devices or wearables--serif fonts are generally considered more readable than sans serif since they help to guide the eye better, which is why nearly all newspapers and books are printed using them.
Don't kid yourself into thinking this move was for technical reasons. It's simply because they wanted to update their logo for design and marketing reasons (e.g. the sans serif font selected is more playful than the previous font, the G is circular now so it'll fit into different designs more easily, the incorporations of multiple colors into the G makes it more distinctive when it stands alone, etc.). Nothing more.
Re:I don't see anything different. by narcc · 2015-09-02 08:41 · Score: 1

Believe it or not, important decisions even in a corporate environment are often based on emotion or "gut instinct" and not on hard-data.
We're not talking about some silly upper-management parody, but highly intelligent people who know better.
People are people, after all, not perfectly rational beings.

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
Re:I don't see anything different. by TWX · 2015-09-02 09:05 · Score: 1

I used serifed fonts with antialiasing in Windows 95 on an 800x600 display. There were no problems with them. And that computer was far less powerful than my four-plus year old smart phone.

Google changed their logo because they wanted the attention that has been given to them because of the change. That attention will eventually wane, and after doing a few other things to get attention they'll eventually change it again. That's what companies do, by and large.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Re: I don't see anything different. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 09:25 · Score: 0

I wonder if MS poached the guy Google had looking after its stock of blue pixels, forcing Google to retaliate by hiring the branding guy who did the 4 colour's in the Windows logo between versions 3.1 and 7.
Re:I don't see anything different. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 10:10 · Score: 0

Maybe they think the Romper Room-ey logo will help tilt things in their favor with their EU antitrust proceedings
Re:I don't see anything different. by Anubis+IV · 2015-09-02 10:32 · Score: 1

I used serifed fonts with antialiasing in Windows 95 on an 800x600 display. There were no problems with them.
Yes, there were. That's why new fonts were created specifically to deal with the screens of that day and why techniques like pixel hinting and sub-pixel rendering were created and used: many fonts looked like crap on those screens. I'm not saying they were unreadable, by any means, nor am I suggesting that all of the issues from back then have been solved, but serif fonts are, generally speaking, significantly more readable (and significantly better looking) on a modern, high-res display than they are on a '90s era monitor. The visible artifacts that were commonplace back then, even with antialiasing, were bad enough that everyday folks off the street could see them easily while still being an arm's length away from the display.
Re:I don't see anything different. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 17:37 · Score: 0

What you don't get is where this logo is applied. If this is to be applied everywhere (i.e. in the tiny little screens on phones), you better well hope that this font renders correctly at that size. And if you actually looked, you'd see that the Google logo in a lot of their products are not prominent at all. For example, it's very common that people mistake Apple Maps for Google Maps (my wife included, before I pointed it out to her), and blame Google when Apple Maps stop working. If Google's logo is that prominent, how would these people mistake it in the first place? And the Google search bar on Android...how many people know it's actually Google providing the service? You'd be surprised how many don't know.
So yeah, branding is pretty freaking important, and people actually do mistake other things for Google's offerings (or vice versa).
Re:I don't see anything different. by TheRaven64 · 2015-09-02 21:45 · Score: 1

Serif fonts work fine on small devices, they don't work well at low DPI. Which, in an age of 200+DPI on cheap devices, means that this move makes little sense. The only reason that the scaling is a problem would be if they're doing something stupid, like using a bitmap image rather than a vector. And, of course, a quick trip to google.com confirms that they are, indeed, using a png rather than an svg (with png fallback if they care that much) for their logo.
So, the real story here is that, in 2015, web giant Google has yet to learn that resolution-independent images are a thing.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

Day late, and a dollar short as usual by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 05:56 · Score: 0

You really couldn't be bothered to tell us this yesterday?

Re:Day late, and a dollar short as usual by Anna+Merikin · 2015-09-02 07:12 · Score: 1

Why? I don't use google, so I would have had to wait twelve or more hours to see it, instead of reading it here right now, opening a new tab, and navigating to google. I've used duckduckgo for many years, but I do think I see a difference in the logo, now that you draw my attention to it. (yawn.)

Slashdot - only halfway there by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 05:57 · Score: 0

I get how Google changing their logo can be classified as "News for Nerds", but I don't see how it also can be considered "Stuff That Matters".

Re:Slashdot - only halfway there by Calydor · 2015-09-02 05:59 · Score: 4, Funny

This raises the important question of whether the comma in that slogan means "and" or "or". Discuss.

--
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Re: Slashdot - only halfway there by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 06:01 · Score: 0

xor
Re:Slashdot - only halfway there by macs4all · 2015-09-02 09:15 · Score: 1

This raises the important question of whether the comma in that slogan means "and" or "or". Discuss.
Actually, all it really demonstrates, is that the person who came up with that catchphrase was too ignorant to know when to use a semicolon properly.
Re:Slashdot - only halfway there by tehcyder · 2015-09-02 23:34 · Score: 1

This raises the important question of whether the comma in that slogan means "and" or "or". Discuss.
Actually, all it really demonstrates, is that the person who came up with that catchphrase was too ignorant to know when to use a semicolon properly.
I think semicolons were deprecated in the Web 2.0 standard.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Sans-Serif by tekrat · 2015-09-02 05:58 · Score: 2

They basically changed the typeface from a Serif typeface to a non-serif typeface. Why? Because more people access Google from their tiny telephone screens, where the serifs get lost anyhow.

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.

Re:Sans-Serif by lgw · 2015-09-02 06:20 · Score: 1

Because more people access Google from their tiny telephone screens, where the serifs get lost anyhow.
Small screens still have lower resolution than print, to be sure, but with reasonable anti-aliasing any modern small display will never "lose the serifs". But serifs are an odd on a title/header font anyhow - they're a tool to make it less fatiguing to read large blocks of text, irrelevant to logos.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Sans-Serif by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 06:37 · Score: 0

I don't agree. I can tell that there is a big difference between the new and old logotype, even in my phone.
Anyhow, the problem that I have with sans-serif fonts is that they look childish. That's what you see in books for children, when they are learning to read. When I read a text typeset in sans-serif I can't help but taking it less seriously than similar texts in serif fonts. Alas, the architecture community is fond of sans-serif fonts - but many architecture books come across as glitzy and hand-wavish anyway.
Re:Sans-Serif by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 06:50 · Score: 0

Anyhow, the problem that I have with sans-serif fonts is that they look childish.

.. but surely that's countered by having the letters be in multiple, bright, primary colors!
Re:Sans-Serif by Dins · 2015-09-02 08:03 · Score: 1

Anyhow, the problem that I have with sans-serif fonts is that they look childish. That's what you see in books for children, when they are learning to read.
Yep, and that's only compounded by the fact that the current logo animation has a child's hand initially drawing the logo in crayon before it morphs into its final form. Did they accidentally roll out a logo designed for some previously non-existent "Google Kids" service?
Re:Sans-Serif by harperska · 2015-09-02 14:48 · Score: 1

Serifs on small displays or blocks of text are for readability. But for titles and headers, they are simply for style. There are two points of view style-wise. The first is that serifs are "classy" and sans-serifs are "childish". See the Wall Street Journal masthead for example. The other is that serifs are "old-fashioned" and "stodgy" while sans-serifs are "fun" and "exciting". This is obviously the view that Google holds, and they felt that their serif logo was holding them back. I happen to hold the former opinion, and think that this rebranding looks like it's made out of kids' refrigerator magnets.
Re:Sans-Serif by lgw · 2015-09-02 15:51 · Score: 1

Fair point. But then, I think that every "dot-com" company name with "OO" in it is a kids name to begin with. Stupid branding fads.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.

Big fat who cares by Citizen+of+Earth · 2015-09-02 05:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

Google merely changed it's font. Whoop-de-doo.

Re:Big fat who cares by bluefoxlucid · 2015-09-02 06:25 · Score: 2

It looks like they changed their logo to a flat, unshaded, extremely-simple affair you could display on a Commodore 64 in two-color mode.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Big fat who cares by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 06:30 · Score: 0

You don't know what a logo is then do you?
Aside from the technicalities of what a logo is though, yeah, dumb ass change. Looks like they had a Crayola coloring contest for kindergartners and some 40 year old mother doing the work for her 5 year old won....
Re:Big fat who cares by Citizen+of+Earth · 2015-09-02 08:23 · Score: 1

The Commodore-64 doesn't have a yellowish-orange color. You'd have to overlay a hi-res sprite to dither colors.
Re: Big fat who cares by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 08:57 · Score: 0

It also scales up to fit the side of a bus, light rail, etc
Re:Big fat who cares by bluefoxlucid · 2015-09-03 04:46 · Score: 1

Interesting. Wasn't the point, though.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.

Not a new logo by mwvdlee · 2015-09-02 06:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's not a new logo, it's just a long-running doodle.

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?

Re:Not a new logo by phantomfive · 2015-09-02 07:24 · Score: 1

Unlike doodles, you can't click on it to see what it's about.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:Google is for cows by ArmoredDragon · 2015-09-02 06:01 · Score: 0

Slashdot fixed that vulnerability a long time ago. And boy did it leave workers vulnerable.

I see this article as validation of Slashdot by idontgno · 2015-09-02 06:02 · Score: 1

Particularly Slashdot's continuing effort to rebrand itself as something (anything) different from "News for nerds, stuff that matters."

Because really. Google redid their marketing? GASP.

I'm facepalming and eyerolling here, Slashdot. Well done.

I wonder what Reddit says about all of this.

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.

Re:I see this article as validation of Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 06:12 · Score: 0

It's Bush's fault.

Re:Google is for cows by ArmoredDragon · 2015-09-02 06:02 · Score: 0

Oh and I forgot to mention that they took the picture off of that site a long time ago, it's no longer to be found there.

Screw the Logo: by BoRegardless · 2015-09-02 06:03 · Score: 1

I want to know if they follow their motto or is that just glossy cover for "We are a private NSA data slurper?"

Re:Screw the Logo: by Dins · 2015-09-02 08:07 · Score: 1

No, it's more like, "See? We're not evil, guys, seriously! If we were we wouldn't have a logo that wouldn't be out of place on a pre-school bulletin board!"

Why didn't the old logo work? by hawguy · 2015-09-02 06:04 · Score: 1

As you’ll see, we’ve taken the Google logo and branding, which were originally built for a single desktop browser page, and updated them for a world of seamless computing across an endless number of devices and different kinds of inputs (such as tap, type and talk).

Since people already were using Google across an endless number of devices with the old logo, why was this new logo needed? I could see the old logo just fine, why is this new logo needed?

I get that they wanted to refresh the look of the logo, but their claim that it's because users use Google on mobile devices seems specious.

As an aside, why has the Slashdor "quote bar" that delineates quoted text faded away to such a light grey that it's barely visible against the white background? Maybe it's just my browser.

Re:Why didn't the old logo work? by ShaunC · 2015-09-02 06:28 · Score: 1

I'm with you, I don't see how their new logo conveys how people "interact with Google products across many different platforms, apps and devices-sometimes all in a single day" any more or less than the old one did. It's a logo. It says "Google." Nothing about the old logo or the new one infers usage from a desktop PC, a phone, a tablet, or anything else, and they could have added the new microphone icon and whatever else without changing the logo. It's their brand to play with, but the justification doesn't make sense, they could have just said "we thought we needed a crisp new look."

--
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
Re:Why didn't the old logo work? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-03 06:46 · Score: 0

Google has become dumbed down and their logo must now reflect that. The search engine has been brought down for the lowest denominator why not the logo as well. Anyone got a better psychoanalysis?

Exact same colors as new MS logo by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 06:04 · Score: 0

This can't be a coincidence.

Re:Exact same colors as new MS logo by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 11:10 · Score: 0

But they're in a different order, so no copyright infringement.

shit by Lehk228 · 2015-09-02 06:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

it really is quite shit. the loop of the lower case 'g' has variation in thickness near the stem, all the rest of the logo is constant width, and even putting the top stem looks dumb given the geometric style of the capital G.

the angle of the slant at the end of the 'g' is also inconsistant with the slant at the end of the 'e'

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.

Re:shit by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 06:20 · Score: 0

I for one approve of Google's slow shift from Comic Sans to Verdana.
Re:shit by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 06:55 · Score: 0

Obligatory XKCD
https://xkcd.com/915/
Re:shit by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 07:15 · Score: 0

Your observations are false and your opinion is asinine.
Re:shit by Anubis+IV · 2015-09-02 08:19 · Score: 1

I'm reminded of this recent blog entry by (well-known typographer) Tobias Frere-Jones, in which he addresses the topic of optical equality vs. mathematical equality, and how two different strokes that may have the same width as you would measure them with a ruler can look entirely different in width to the human eye.
Google would do well to pay attention to him, since those Os look ridiculously fat when sitting next to the capital G. And the crossbar for the G doesn't seem to sit next to the O in any sort of sensible way. It looks like it should either be higher or lower. ...and then there's that rotated E makes me think of Enron and Dell each time I see it.
Re:shit by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 09:33 · Score: 0

The crossbar of the 'e' has thickness different from the rest of the letter as well. And the slant at the end of the 'g' is not inconsistent. It's just not consistent with what you thought it was consistent with. The 'G' and the 'e' have the slant at a 45 degree angle based on the shape of the letter's overall arc. The 'g' does something similar, but it's an oblong letter. Thus the slant is positioned at the 45 degree crossing point on the letter's box outline, but since that doesn't land at a "clean" point on the curve of the 'g', it looks weird.
Re:shit by tehcyder · 2015-09-02 23:48 · Score: 1

You sure know your fonts, buddy.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

DDG FTW. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 06:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

Duck duck go baby, for the win. I would have never known about this if not for this article as it's been years since I've touched a Google service and they've become hugely irrelevant in my life.

But i went and looked at the new logo, not impressed. And still not getting why people wish to live and work in a Google tracked alternate reality bubble. Between Google, WinX and OSX, I can only say thank the lord for Mint, Mate, and all you great open source upstream maintainers out there that make my small private computing world possible! Amen.

looks like... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 06:10 · Score: 0

a toy store?

SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by lesincompetent · 2015-09-02 06:11 · Score: 0

Friggin great, more windoze-like flat bullshit.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 07:41 · Score: 0

Several forks of linux, iOS, and android all popped up to say "hello!". You probably forgot about all the other OSes that use the flat ui design when Windows adopted it several years later. People tend to either a) forget specific events in history or b) revel in it.

RElax by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 06:13 · Score: 0

It's just samzenpussy.

Trendy Logo® by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 06:18 · Score: 0

It's great. Finally I can convince people that Google, Lenovo and Logitech are owned by the same parent company.

Re:Trendy Logo® by istartedi · 2015-09-02 06:27 · Score: 1

These things are definitely trendy. Remember the late 90s when there was a trend in corporate naming towards neologisms using certain syllables? We got Verizon, Altria, Avaya, etc. I seem to recall writing a script that could generate such names, and they all looked plausible. I think the script could generate 1000s of possible combinations, so it was pretty spooky when it actually generated Altria.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Re:Trendy Logo® by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 07:07 · Score: 0

Ah yes - the point when companies decided they didn't want you to know what their products or services were anymore:

"Octagiliss is now Avarlular! - Same great products, bold new name!"
If you knew that 3M stood for "Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing" or that IBM stood for "International Business Machines", then you had some clue. "Lexmark" was beginning to get obscure. (though it means "word write")
"Qwikster" - Any guesses?
Re:Trendy Logo® by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 09:41 · Score: 0

Lexmark makes devices that put marks on paper, and they're based in Lexington, Kentucky.
That one is way the hell more logical than most.
Re:Trendy Logo® by istartedi · 2015-09-02 16:45 · Score: 1

No idea what "Qwikster" does. Burn money quickly? I forgot to mention the king of those awful names: Accenture. The only way I can ever remember that is to google Anderson Consulting, which pulls up the name-change story. OK.. had to look up Qwikster... it was apparently a failed initiative by Netflix. BTW, Netflix is a great name. It practically sums up their whole business model, right there in the name. It makes sense. It's easy to remember and pronounce. It sounds like English, not a Yoga chant. If Netflix had been named in 1999, it'd be Vidato... OK... googling... LOL, some furniture company in Europe uses that.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Re:Trendy Logo® by tehcyder · 2015-09-02 23:56 · Score: 1

I think Andersen Consulting had a better reason than most for changing their name. To distance themselves from Arthur Andersen and the Enron fiasco, I'm surprised they didn't go for something beginning with Z.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Trendy Logo® by show+me+altoids · 2015-09-03 01:52 · Score: 1

"Lexmark" was beginning to get obscure. (though it means "word write")
That, and the fact that they are headquartered in Lexington, KY.

--
I feel sorry for people that don't drink, because when they get up in the morning, that's as good as they're gonna feel
Re:Trendy Logo® by theArtificial · 2015-09-03 09:59 · Score: 1

If Netflix had been named in 1999, it'd be Vidato... OK... googling... LOL, some furniture company in Europe uses that.
It was named in 1999.

--
Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.

As Elton John Says by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 06:18 · Score: 0

Yell Help! UGLY!

Rock of the Westies

Indeed. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 06:20 · Score: 0

This surely portends doom for all of us.

Agreed by Daetrin · 2015-09-02 06:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

I have opinions about the subject and i still think it's not worth a Slashdot story.

Opinions:

Aesthetically the new logo looks okay. Of course the old logo looked okay too, and as someone who's usually not enthusiastic about change for change's sake i really don't see the point.

However, it is also clearly meant to reference the new "flat" "Material Design" that Google has been pushing in their apps and OS. So even though the logo itself looks okay it still makes me grit my teeth a little because of all the other UI changes they've forced on us that make my eyes bleed.

But what really bugs me is that they changed the favicon to match the new logo. I have a habit of doing a google search, opening a couple of the results in new tabs, looking at them, and then jumping back to the google tab to either open some more results or refine the search. So now by habit my brain is looking for the old favicon in the tabs and keeps skipping over the new (and arguably less distinct) favicon. This is a problem that i'm sure i'll get over relatively soon, but it's going to be annoying for the next couple days.

(See? That totally wasn't worth having a Slashdot story to discuss it.)

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank

Re:Agreed by TWX · 2015-09-02 09:10 · Score: 1

I do not like modern flat design. I actually used Windows 3.1 and old pre-faux-3d versions of Macintosh System 6 and 7 before Windows 95 came out, and the faux-3d UI that added just a little bit of depth was good for making things literally stand out in relief that were important, and for differentiating different aspects of the shell.

As for the browser logo, a rainbow "G" on a white field looks more like the logo for a superhero for the gay and lesbian community than the logo for a technology company.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.

Re: looks broken by Flavianoep · 2015-09-02 06:26 · Score: 2

The new favicon is horrible. There is a yellow section in the uppercase 'G' while the the whole letter is on a white background. That way, it looks like the 'G' is broken around the yellow section.

--
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.

The new thing. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 06:26 · Score: 0

The new thing is terrible.
There are many reasons why this new thing will break the game.

1: The equipment we farmed will have different value now.
2: The work we did will be easier or harder for subsequent people to do.
3: It is different.
4: It is not the same as it was before.
5: The way it was before is how I want it to remain.
6: It is new.
7: I don't like it.

With all of these factors in mind - and these are just the ones that come to me now, I would like to put forward a petition. Please, please can we stop this new thing now? And in the meantime can I also tell you how qualified I am not to like this new thing. I did that old thing a lot. I was better than anyone in the world at that old thing. I am the master of that old thing. The only master. This is not the reason I dislike this new thing, though. I am the master of this new thing too. Oh no don't get me wrong, I am better at this new thing than any of you, ever, and have been since before I was born. But that old thing was better, and this new thing is bad and wrong.

Please Devs - take notice of my cries. This new thing is going to make this game into a different game from how it was before. This cannot be allowed to happen. Stop now. You will listen to me, Devs, because we are close personal friends. I have known you all for years. We used to do that old thing together every tuesday lunchtime. One time you said to me, "Slog I will always warn you before I change anything so you can veto it if you don't like it." Well, you didn't. You went behind my back.

Anyway, I am not complaining. I just want to make it perfectly clear that I am oober, this new thing is bad, and that old thing is the only way that anything should be done.

-z

Just like the Hooters logo now by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2015-09-02 06:27 · Score: 2

All Google needs now is a good sexual harassment story and some enterprising young graphic artist will add the Hooters "owl eyes" to the new Google logo.

the last E is why they did it by Spy+Handler · 2015-09-02 06:29 · Score: 3, Funny

see how they pushed the E up slightly into a tilted angle? Now it looks like a sarcastic pacman smiley.

http://www.femoticons.net/imag...

How did the meeting go? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 06:30 · Score: 0

I wonder how the meeting where they decided on the new logo went. Maybe they had 10 candidates and voted. Maybe they hired someone an paid $100,000 to do it, and he went and selected a different font in 30 seconds of work (I'm just gonna go ahead and claim it was a he). Maybe Larry Page just went into google one day and thought "I hate this font!!"

Concern by stevez67 · 2015-09-02 06:39 · Score: 1

When it comes to Google, its logo, its apps and its services, my concern can be measured in micro give-a-shits and I'm working on nano-technology.

Missed a Spot by Forgefather · 2015-09-02 06:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is just marketing bullshit, but I do think it's funny that an article about google's new font uses an image tag that has the old font.

--
"There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"

Why not ... by PPH · 2015-09-02 06:45 · Score: 1

... this logo?

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re: looks broken by pushing-robot · 2015-09-02 06:47 · Score: 1

Agreed. I like bright colors, but a 16x16 favicon isn't the place for visual distraction. A solid blue 'G' would work much better.

--
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?

Google Changes Logo by PopeRatzo · 2015-09-02 06:51 · Score: 1

I changed my underwear today. And not a moment too soon.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Remember when by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2015-09-02 06:54 · Score: 1

>> Maybe they hired someone an paid $100,000 to do it, and he went and selected a different font in 30 seconds of work

Remember when Gap did that? I'll bet they paid more that $100K for their turd, making Google's font change a bargain!.
http://adage.com/article/behin...
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...

Must be Wednesday.... by Lord_Rion · 2015-09-02 06:54 · Score: 1

Google changed it's logo yet again......

Happens so often.. how is this news anymore?

--
--Hired Net Grunt

Re: looks broken by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 07:12 · Score: 0

The yellow section is perfectly noticeable to me and doesn't look "broken". Maybe my eyesight is just better than yours.

Marissa Mayer purge by tomhath · 2015-09-02 07:21 · Score: 1

Didn't she design the original logo (or copy the design from eBay)?

It's gender neutral now by nicoleb_x · 2015-09-02 07:21 · Score: 1

My first reaction was that they made it gender neutral. You know, kind of castrated with no testosterone.

In-house design team hiring? by xenotransplant · 2015-09-02 07:33 · Score: 1

I am pretty good at "select all" "edit" "change font" in photoshop.

Here's new logo by goombah99 · 2015-09-02 07:50 · Score: 0

in case you were looking for the logo here it is.
https://m.imgur.com/XaIWseY

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.

Re:Here's new logo by OakDragon · 2015-09-02 09:03 · Score: 1

Or... http://i.imgur.com/pNKHnk1.png.

--
Dark Reflection
Re:Here's new logo by Pseudonym · 2015-09-02 13:05 · Score: 1

I really want to do a fake "WARNING: Goatse link!" but I couldn't be arsed.

--
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});

Protected font by erapert · 2015-09-02 07:50 · Score: 1

Inspected the source for the page: They're not using a font to render the logo, they're using an image... Why?
To prevent people from downloading and re-using a font? Or do I not recognize the font because I'm simply one to whom all fonts look the same?
see the Anonymous post above:

Obligatory XKCD

https://xkcd.com/915/

Man Types Words by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 07:59 · Score: 0

Today, a man typed some words into a text area, which some slash dot readers saw.

Google, an Alphabet company by tepples · 2015-09-02 08:00 · Score: 1

Was it familiar because Google is bringing its branding more in line with that of the Alphabet holding company that owns it?

Slashdot uses Arial and VW uses VAG by tepples · 2015-09-02 08:08 · Score: 1

Anyhow, the problem that I have with sans-serif fonts is that they look childish.

From Slashdot's CSS: body { margin: 0; font:13px/1.5 Arial,sans-serif; background: rgb(204,204,204);} Or is Slashdot likewise childish? Is Volkswagen's branding childish?

That's what you see in books for children, when they are learning to read.

That's not what I remember seeing for the text in The Cat in the Hat and Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Seuss. It looks like Times.

Re:Slashdot uses Arial and VW uses VAG by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-03 06:41 · Score: 0

The letters are no longer grounded they can easily roll away.

Not the first ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 08:50 · Score: 0

... won't be the last, for Google OR anyone else:

http://www.neatorama.com/2008/02/07/the-evolution-of-tech-companies-logos/

Would you like a cookie? by GWBasic · 2015-09-02 09:30 · Score: 1

Seriously, this isn't a big deal. Why is everyone making a big deal of this?

Specifically, why is Google making a big deal of this? When Intel changed its logo hardly anyone noticed.

--
No, I will not work for your startup

Rainbow G is for Gay by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 09:48 · Score: 0

They are still celebrating gay marriage with the fav icon -- a rainbow colored G for Gay. Very clever.

The logo is awful, made by kids. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 09:56 · Score: 0

The logo is awful, made by kids.

Re:The logo is awful, made by kids. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 10:07 · Score: 0

When they grow-up, serifs will be the new rage and another round of logo changes...
Re:The logo is awful, made by kids. by tehcyder · 2015-09-03 00:02 · Score: 1

When they grow-up, serifs will be the new rage and another round of logo changes...
In the 1990s camel case (or whatever you're supposed to call them) logos like NeXT were the cool thing. In the 2020s I predict that mixed serif/sans seriff logos will become trendy.
That will really get the graphic designers and font nerds annoyed.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

"Logo Change" again by Lord+Bitman · 2015-09-02 10:04 · Score: 1

Why do stories about branding changes, without fail, call it a "logo change"? And usually coupled with complaints such as "What? They changed the font on the logo? I Bet someone made a lot of money for that genius move!"

"Branding" != "Logo". The logo is almost always *part of* a branding change, but it is almost never the *extent* of a branding change.

Branding includes all logos (not just the one which shows the parent company's name), colour schemes, phrasing ("tone of voice"), types of packaging, the way information is presented on and in packaging, the way physical stores are organised, the *existence* of physical stores, which products will be promoted, where product development will be focused in the future, etc.

A re-branding is usually part of a company restructure, or a major change in focus, after market forces (eg: a new competitor, a shift in technology, particularly bad sales, a looming end to exponential growth, etc) have made it clear that *something* needs to change, to ensure either continued growth, or in an attempt to prevent further losses.

But the big story everyone focuses on is always "the main corporate logo has changed. So-and-so consulting company is rumoured to have been paid $80,000,000,000 for this change"

As Google's blog puts it, this isn't a "logo change", this is a change to Google's design, how it presents its services, how it highlights what products it offers, etc.

--
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All

very impressive by slashmydots · 2015-09-02 10:41 · Score: 1

It looks like they basically changed it to Arial and rendered the left edge of the L incorrectly. Great job! This is almost as good as that idiotic name they choose for their company restructuring.

Re: looks broken by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 11:02 · Score: 0

The new favicon is horrible. There is a yellow section in the uppercase 'G' while the the whole letter is on a white background. That way, it looks like the 'G' is broken around the yellow section.

No, it's horrible because the goofy rainbow G makes it looks like the favicon of a gay pride site.

Thanks to Heineken by mars-nl · 2015-09-02 11:51 · Score: 1

The slanted e looks a lot like the one in Heineken logo (which is already very old). The Google designers probably did their brain storm session in a bar...

OMGWTFLMAO!? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 12:46 · Score: 0

Who. Gives. A flying. Fuck.

I prefer this logo... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 13:41 · Score: 0

http://ih0.redbubble.net/image.53911220.2242/flat,800x800,070,f.u1.jpg

Looks like IE by JeremyGNJ · 2015-09-02 13:46 · Score: 1

Am I the only one who thinks that if you changed the color of the last "e" in the new logo that it would look exactly like the old Internet Explorer logo?

This isn't about the Logo. It's about control. by Anonanonaon · 2015-09-02 15:23 · Score: 1

Only two people pointed out that a logo change is *not* the item worth paying attention to.

It's about changing the company's operating philosophy while shifting public perception so as to make the transition comfortable.

However, several people here *did* pick up on the psychological association, which is almost absolutely deliberate...

It looks like a pre-school, Fischer Price toy store logo.

It's for babies.

Now ponder *that*.

Also, pay attention to the new style of filtering. For instance, a month ago you could search for the word, "Torrent" and get a bunch of results. That doesn't work today.

Google is angling towards DRM friendly; it's going to be a safe, coddling place where you are treated like an infant, (while they mine your data and observe your "growth").

The public perception is being managed in such a way that this insulting approach makes you feel like it's being done with good intentions. Makes you feel all warm and cuddled and taken care of while your brain is monitored and directed.

Re:This isn't about the Logo. It's about control. by Anonanonaon · 2015-09-02 15:27 · Score: 1

Even the introductory animation was done with the "for Babies" directive in mind.
Remember what it was? Go look.

An informative article by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-02 15:26 · Score: 0

http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-sans-serif-typefaces/
Suggests that there is no strong scientific evidence of difference between the fonts in terms of readability and legibility.

I don't mind it. by kale77in · 2015-09-02 15:26 · Score: 1

I don't mind it.

Less fiddly on for small devices.
It's continuous with the old design.
It fits their material design ethic and general look, which the old logo didn't.
Its a bland, but so was the old one. People were just familiar with that kind of bland.
The new "G" favicon solves the problem that they haven't had a well branded favicon.

All changes look bad initially.

Prediction: After a week non-one will notice. We will have always been at war with EastAsia.

Google but ... by skaralic · 2015-09-02 16:45 · Score: 1

... in a smaller font, in Jokerman font.

Re:Google is for cows by Pieroxy · 2015-09-02 20:56 · Score: 1

I can see it perfectly fine.

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!

Haven't I seen this before? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-03 01:09 · Score: 0

Every time I see the new logo, I think of the Green Bay Packers.

Google steps back to go forward by Zeekort · 2015-09-03 14:00 · Score: 1

They've removed the shadows, flattened it out, and now they've removed the serifs so that it'll look good on more devices....Brilliant! Now my Windows 3.1 PC with NCSA Mosaic can load Google faster and not get bogged down with what would otherwise be a resource hog of a logo! Thank you Google for being so considerate.

Google you have now almost caught up with Microsoft for a flat uninspired logo that takes me back to the DOS days with monochrome monitors. All you have to do now is make it one color. Come on, you can do it! I'm sure that there's some mono-chrome screens still in use on some devices somewhere that could benefit from this.

132 comments