Slashdot Mirror
Google Changes Logo
An anonymous reader writes: Yesterday, Google announced a logo change that many on Slashdot have probably already encountered. The logo, according to the technology supergiant, was updated to reflect the fact that people "interact with Google products across many different platforms, apps and devices—sometimes all in a single day." This differentiates from the past when people only used a desktop PC to access Google's services.
I sometimes see just gibberish, dark marketing gibberish.
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,
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.
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.
Google merely changed it's font. Whoop-de-doo.
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=-
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?
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.
I want to know if they follow their motto or is that just glossy cover for "We are a private NSA data slurper?"
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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"?
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.
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...
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.
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"
Have gnu, will travel.
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?
I changed my underwear today. And not a moment too soon.
You are welcome on my lawn.
>> 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...
Google changed it's logo yet again......
Happens so often.. how is this news anymore?
--Hired Net Grunt
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.)
Didn't she design the original logo (or copy the design from eBay)?
My first reaction was that they made it gender neutral. You know, kind of castrated with no testosterone.
I am pretty good at "select all" "edit" "change font" in photoshop.
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/
Was it familiar because Google is bringing its branding more in line with that of the Alphabet holding company that owns it?
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.
Or... http://i.imgur.com/pNKHnk1.png.
Dark Reflection
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.
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
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 $80,000,000,000 for this change"
As Google's blog puts it, this isn't a "logo change", this is a change to Google's design, how it presents its services, how it highlights what products it offers, etc.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
It looks like they basically changed it to Arial and rendered the left edge of the L incorrectly. Great job! This is almost as good as that idiotic name they choose for their company restructuring.
The slanted e looks a lot like the one in Heineken logo (which is already very old). The Google designers probably did their brain storm session in a bar...
I really want to do a fake "WARNING: Goatse link!" but I couldn't be arsed.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
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?
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.
I don't mind it.
All changes look bad initially.
Prediction: After a week non-one will notice. We will have always been at war with EastAsia.
... in a smaller font, in Jokerman font.
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"?
I can see it perfectly fine.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
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
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
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
"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
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.
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.