Hey everyone. At the urging and wise advice of Mizwizzy, I'm starting a new thread to discuss logos.
First of all, I was wondering what you thought about the new Windows 8 logo. Do you like it? Do you hate it? What would you have done to improve it? What do you like about it?
Also, more importantly, what makes a good logo? Do you have a logo?
lol. It looks kinda Greek colors meets Swedish proportions, to me. I NEVER say whether I like a logo or not. I feel this is a common misconception of what a brandmark is. I always answer the question whether it conveys a core value or general essence of the service, group or product it represent AND whether it ill survive reproduction at many sizes and in many media as well as incorporation into variety of uses ( ads, animations, packaging to name just a few) . It appears Redmond is trying to fallow in Apple's footsteps for minimalism, but failed in attaining their competitors elegance and conveying any sort of "feel" for what the product is ( unless they intended to say "uh.. we are drawing a blank).
Art directing, I may have suggested wider spacing, maybe a subtle slant of one, if not both, of the white bars ; rounding of the OUTER CORNERS may have conveyed a more comfortable and inviting message, and made it more apt tho have that shiny that 2.0 look applied to it. I mam ambivalent about the logotype, but I certainly would have kerned it differently. All this is but my cursory impression, tho.
I agree w/ that comment on the "shiny 2.0 look". One thing that sort of makes it boring (imo) is that there's not really any texture to it...nothing that I can "feel" or sense or anything of that sort. It's just....one color.
The apple logo is "just one color" as is Target's... and they are a couple of the strongest marks out there. If you have to ADD to a logo to make it good.. you have gone the wrong direction. I came back to to this thread because i remember what i had said about 2.0.
2.0 is NOT a logo, it's a treatment. a logo should be able to take that or any other "fad" treatment that comes along. Apple, as an example again.. looks great FLAT or 2.0. Because of it's sloppy design, W8 fails to do either (not because of a mono chromatic scheme or single angular shape).
Sure. I suppose maybe I wanted a more saturated blue. Am I wrong again? (:
To be perfectly honest it's a nice start but it doesn't "pop" and is too plain. Unfortunately in this day and age everyone expects top of the line graphics, so I think you should keep working it. Looks like you saved with reduced quality, can see the yellowish outline, and looks pixalated, which isn't good. You should consider a drop shadow and smooth color transition, light to dark is typically a winner, overall just study big company logos and how they flow and merge colors together, offset and onset.
more color, maybe keep the same 4 color-scheme of the previous windows logos...the logo is fine, it shows the simplicity of the metro design, however it should also present the diversity of the apps that will run inside it, hence the 4 color design
You can tell that a brand has a good logo if you're able to remember it after five minutes, if you see the mark somewhere and instantly associate it with its product.
Apple has a brilliant logo, so does IBM, Mercedes, Audi, Yahoo!, Adidas, Puma, Nike, and the list could go on and on an on...
And I think that should be obvious to everyone making a logo - but is frequently forgotten. It's a good thing to remember our primary goal - to make sure that our branding sticks and is recognizable. That is, after all, what branding is, am I right?
Lol. I didn't make it. We're just critiquing it.
You couldn't be further from the truth.
Just kidding. :eye:
respectfully, I think you guys are missing something VITAL bout logo/brands.
COLOR/ GRADIENTS, etc. DO NOT a logo make. Otherwise, what would happen when said mark needs to be part of a FAX sheet, or is printed in one color, or etched on the side of a product? Think of it this way it is bad practice to make a web dependent of some fancy CSS to be navigable.. well the same applies to dependent on color or 3D effects to to make a logo.
When you talk about color, gradients, shine, extrusion (3D), etc... you are talking about TREATMENTS of a design, not the design itself.
To be perfectly honest it's a nice start but it doesn't "pop" and is too plain.
LOL-OMG.. the art directors bane!!! "Make it 30% more edgy"
Again another web analogy. IF anyone had dared attempt the aesthetics of web 2.0 in 1997 .. they would have met with jeers and questions such as... "Why isn't my logo spinning, blinking, and on fire? I want it to be 'edgy'". 'Edgy' and other such adjectives, are many clients way of saying "I dont know what I want... but I know it when I see it.. or if am not sure.. when my stay at home wife tell me she sees 'it'"
The problem is that, contrary to popular belief, design is just a much of a science as programming.
Interesting example. Quiet a few years ago, I was dealing with a suburban Chicago client (supposedly not a hick) who operated a water cooler business. He wanted totally new look/ logo. It too some doing he couldn't seem to let go of the ( that was too long a story to tell now) old look which also presented many technical problems in an of itself. When we finally "agreed" on a mark design ( a stylized water drop) I set to work on branding colors ( treatment). He "dint like THAT color". Three days worth of revisions later I actually just came out and asked what color he was envisioning for his fresh water?. His reply was he and his wife "had never liked (any shade of ) blue but thought yellow was very 'happy and cheerful' ". The point of all this... does that convey "fresh water"?
These are SOME of the considerations needed to take into account when beginning to build a bran mark.
Also, more importantly, what makes a good logo?
I love minimal logo's, but I feel it's too much of a transition to what they had. Logo's should be slowly evolve into something else. They seamed to have jumped several evolution steps into what looks like a kind of Apple-look. A logo should symbolize what it is, Apple was always simple, hence is simple OS. Windows on the other hand has always been known for it's jammed packed product. I think they missed the train with this logo and just copied rival Apple.
A good logo is something which focuses on the company goals. It needs to symbolize the company goals and missions and it has to have meaning.
What would you have done to improve it?
I would not have jumped so many steps in this. Yes, I would have made is simpler, but not that simple. Maybe I would have kept the original windows looking feel, with a simple interface, looking similar but not a complete copy of the Apple logo. This looks like the copied it directly with a Windows feel. Microsoft should have made is less obvious.
Do you have a logo?
em..yep, not sure what other's think of it but it's fairly set in stone now. I did write a squidoo a while back, which covers other points too - here.
I think that that's an interesting and valid point...but when a few steps could be as many as 10 years, it's a long time to wait. That could be millions or even billions in lost revenue. Sure, you could point out that Windows controls an overwhelming percentage of market share (I'm pretty sure it's about 92%), but even so, a lot can happen in 10 years. Does the practical nature of needing the possible revenue outweigh the temporary dislike of a logo?
Does the practical nature of needing the possible revenue outweigh the temporary dislike of a logo?
Drastic change in a logo is always a bad move. Things should change slowly. What they did is copy Apple, that's not innovation. Apple are likely to change their logo and Windows will have to change again. I really don't believe money here is an issue. Microsoft make billions! In fact they could probably set up a logo creation company (if they have not done already) to cut costs on external contacts and make money in the process.
What a wonderful contest. To be truthful most of those logo's are better than the current Windows 8 logo. As they have the Windows colors. I voted for the 4th entry and the last entry. To me they make sense.
Yes, a nice contest. Could've been better, but still.
I think the biggest obstacle in one's mind when aiming logo production is to be able to perceive the distinction between illustration and logo. The next step is that little bit of inspiration to make it unique, yet keep it simple.
I dont like the logo its totally blue...Windows 7 logo is better than this ...
They've been hitting the 3D logo for so long, this drastically different 2D style actually has people discussing it. So, it's not a total wash.
The logo seems (OKAY) out of at 10 I'll give it a good tight 6!. to me it doesn't define windows..
Just my opinion.
Hate it. It's a step down from the current windows 7 logo, which is probably an indicator of what the OS will be like. That's the trend Microsoft seems to be going for, though.
next page →