Google Chrome and Chromium to get new logos

By on March 16, 2011, 11:45 AM
Google Chrome will be getting a new logo in the next version. Those on the dev branch are already seeing it in version 11.0.696.12 dev.

Last week, the good old guys at the Polish forum FrazPC provided a comparison screenshot between the old and new logos for Chrome. They also got their hands on a comparison that showed Chromium would also be getting a new logo.

If you look closely, however, the new Chrome logo is actually slightly different in Chrome 11 when compared to what the Polish guys found. Clearly Google was still making changes when the comparisons were leaked.

Either way, I can't figure out whether I like the new logo or not. On the one hand, I was a big fan of the old 3D logo. On the other hand, the new 2D one seems much cleaner, and could go well with the perception of the browser.

I never realized how often I see Chrome's new logo: every time I hit Alt+Tab, it pops out at me. What do you think of the new logos for Chrome and Chromium?





User Comments: 61

Got something to say? Post a comment
unrealmp3 unrealmp3 said:

I think the original one was better looking.

Guest said:

I personally like the old logo, but the new one does look cleaner.

ramonsterns said:

Looks awful, what were they thinking?

Guest said:

For me the old one is better....^_^

Guest said:

Old one is much better. New one looks like a CD, a CD from someone without any decent label maker and used crayons instead.

treeski treeski said:

Either way looks just fine to me.

mario mario, Ex-TS Developer, said:

As a logo the new one might be better but as an application icon definitely the old one is the way to go, I believe it integrates better cross-platform because in OS X that chromo logo/icon will definitely look weird on the dock.

Staff
Per Hansson Per Hansson, TS Server Guru, said:

I like the old one better

Same with the icon for IE8 vs IE9

ansh1993 said:

I do like the new look, but I wish that they kept the illusion of reflectivity a little bit.

Mizzou Mizzou said:

Definitely like the old ones better, might help if they would add some depth to the new logos.

ramonsterns said:

They might as well change the name of the program to "Matte"

Guest said:

The new one is way more effective. Logos don't need to look pretty, they just serve a purpose.

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I way prefer the old one! I like the depth and shine and the deeper colors. Wish they had kept the old one.

stewi0001 stewi0001 said:

ramonsterns said:

They might as well change the name of the program to "Matte"

seriously, they got rid of the chromo style. This is why I hate designing logos.

ramonsterns said:

Guest said:

The new one is way more effective. Logos don't need to look pretty, they just serve a purpose.

The purpose is to look pretty and be recognizable.

Old one serves both, new one is now generic and dull.

ramonsterns said:

Guest said:

The new one is way more effective. Logos don't need to look pretty, they just serve a purpose.

The purpose is to look pretty and be recognizable.

Old one serves both, new one is now generic and dull.

Lurker101 said:

And scratch another vote for the old one. The new one is an eyesore.

rajwraith said:

I guess I'm the only one here who likes the new one :P

ramonsterns said:

rajwraith said:

I guess I'm the only one here who likes the new one :P

That's ok, I'm sure there's another person besides you, the creator of the logo, and the guy who approved it to share in your bad taste. :P

Staff
Rick Rick, TechSpot Staff, said:

The old one is machine-like and almost intimidating. I think the improvement here are the new 'friendly' and 'pleasant' looks of the logo.

In graphics arts terms, the old one displays superior technical proficiency. Fancy logos don't always (And usually do not) make the best brand images though.

Guest said:

This shows how hard it is to design for clients sometimes. What you think they would like an run with is the exact opposite. Sometimes its best to save those brainstorm concepts,.... they may just be your lucky stars waiting to shine.

Guest said:

Both are awful !!!

matrix86 matrix86 said:

ramonsterns said:

Guest said:

The new one is way more effective. Logos don't need to look pretty, they just serve a purpose.

The purpose is to look pretty and be recognizable.

Old one serves both, new one is now generic and dull.

I raise my glass to you.

ramonsterns said:

Rick said:

The old one is machine-like and almost intimidating. I think the improvement here are the new 'friendly' and 'pleasant' looks of the logo.

In graphics arts terms, the old one displays superior technical proficiency. Fancy logos don't always (And usually do not) make the best brand images though.

True, a simple logo can work well, if not better than a complicated one. But going from a 3D-like logo with reflection (like it was chromed, get it?) to a generic, flat multicolored pokeball is not the way to do it.

Trillionsin Trillionsin said:

Who gives a rats ***!!! Silly logos... haha

nismo91 said:

looks like from 3D going to 2D.

Lokalaskurar Lokalaskurar said:

The new logos are much, much uglier than the original. Tasteless and surely some kind of sick joke. No? Gosh d*rnit, Google.

There are better looking, vector-designed logos of Chrome, but these new ones are in fact very ugly.

Relic Relic, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Meh...I like the old one much more then the new, it just looks so plain in comparison.

MrAnderson said:

Yes the old ones look better because they have the 3D eye-candy going for them, but they probably broke many of the rules in regard to Logo design.

The newer ones in comparison are blah, but they make for a cleaner (sure boring) logo and still are recognizable (just not in black and white) from the originals. But isn't google about clean and simple when it comes to their designs?

ramonsterns said:

MrAnderson said:

Yes the old ones look better because they have the 3D eye-candy going for them, but they probably broke many of the rules in regard to Logo design.

The newer ones in comparison are blah, but they make for a cleaner (sure boring) logo and still are recognizable (just not in black and white) from the originals. But isn't google about clean and simple when it comes to their designs?

As I said, simply logos aren't bad. Just this one in particular is terrible.

yowanvista yowanvista said:

I like the original one

Nima304 said:

The old logo is a lot better. The new one sucks.

Guest said:

Like most of you, I prefer the old one. I am a current Graphic Communications student and although the new logo presents more of that simple, flat look, what I love about the old one is that they broke away from that simple flat look that everyone uses.

TLDR: Old version is unique, defining and illustrative. New version is boring, flat and looks like a cheap knockoff.

-Dave G

Jibberish18 said:

The old logo DEFINITELY looks better but to be honest the new one fits in PERFECTLY with the browser. It's just simple and clean.

Jibberish18 said:

Jibberish18 said:

The old logo DEFINITELY looks better but to be honest the new one fits in PERFECTLY with the browser. It's just simple and clean.

I also wanted to add, it would be nice if their was an in between.

nismo91 said:

hold on. i just noticed that in first pic, the new logo seems trash with the color fade effect. looks much better on the about google chrome image.

Staff
Ivan Franco Ivan Franco said:

I prefer the old logo, in despite of the minimal style of chrome, but its not ugly at all

Wagan8r Wagan8r said:

It's like they forgot what they named their product.

TrekExpert TrekExpert said:

What?!?! NO!!! That's awful, what were they thinking?

Johny47 said:

The old google chromium symbol looks like Guilty Spark from Halo =/

edison5do said:

For me the old one is good enough.. *_*

bakape said:

You are missing out on the motive behind this. This new 2D logo can be put anywhere for advertisement purposes. Look at Android's! You can print that on a rats ass and it would still be recognisable.

I did like the old one better though...

TitoBXNY TitoBXNY said:

A step back, older version is better.

lawfer, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Hahaha... too much free time, Chrome team?

spikester48661 spikester48661 said:

old one good and the new one sucks big time.

tonylukac said:

The old one looked like a tit.

Guest said:

What an "improvement"! (note the sarcasm...)

This is what happens when the Google graphics designers get a pay cut.

Guest said:

Another Vote for the old one!

Guest said:

NOOOOO. the old logo is farrrrr better. all they should do is remove the square panels on the bottom left and it will be fine

Guest said:

bottom rite sorry :P

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.