Google Chrome and Chromium to get new logos

G

Guest

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

mario

Posts: 398   +17
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.
 

Mizzou

Posts: 783   +0
Definitely like the old ones better, might help if they would add some depth to the new logos.
 
G

Guest

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

Burty117

Posts: 3,889   +1,784
I way prefer the old one! I like the depth and shine and the deeper colors. Wish they had kept the old one.
 

ramonsterns

Posts: 744   +13
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

Posts: 744   +13
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

Posts: 744   +13
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
 

Rick

Posts: 4,512   +66
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.
 
G

Guest

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.
 

matrix86

Posts: 852   +39
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

Posts: 744   +13
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.