New Google logo

Any thoughts?

I hate it. The /G annoys me, and the last three letters look very congested to me.

But that's just my opinion. 
Tagged:
«1

Comments

  • Why? 
  • I'm not sure why. I just wondered if anyone else felt the same, and might have an explanation.
  • Ramiro EspinozaRamiro Espinoza Posts: 716
    edited September 2015
    - The capital 'G' is a bit light and also maybe too close to 'o'
    - The final 'e' looks awkward, specially its lighter oblique bar
    - The descender of 'g' is too closed

     
  • Jakov JakovljevicJakov Jakovljevic Posts: 24
    edited September 2015
    I like the little reminder of the old logo in the form of the tilted 'e', but that's about it. It does maintain the old logo's essence fairly well, except for ditching the most memorable glyph, the two-story 'g'. But now, there is a rhythmic consistency between the two o's and the rounded g, which is a nice touch.
  • The pronunciation has been changed too. Now it's: go ogle. 
  • Deleted AccountDeleted Account Posts: 739
    edited September 2015
    The Google logo video has already surpassed the combined plays of all commercial movies in history, so maybe all commercial movies should be free?;)

    I might also add, that as a type business worker with letter drawing experience, that it is done. To hate it or love it is weird, just strange to me. It is. They decided, they did it, congratulations. 

    With letter drawing experience, and knowledge of modern design flows, I'd like to see a slightly heavier G, with a slightly lower crossbar location, and a slightly taller l. Then, I'd like to declare a 72pt mister Google, but you know spacing. 
  • Craig EliasonCraig Eliason Posts: 857
    edited September 2015
    When I wonder whom should I rely on to help navigate the complex, information-rich world that advanced technology makes available, the answer is obvious: a preschool kid.
  • Gee, the "Toys Are Us" logo goes modern.
  • Gee, the "Toys Are Us" logo goes modern.

    Speaking as a former toy industry CD who had to pay close attention to this stuff, the TRU logo is actually pretty damn good. A hell of a lot better than this one.

    I like the four dots. Maybe they can do a Nike, drop the name, and just use the four dots.

  • Chris LozosChris Lozos Posts: 1,135
    edited September 2015
    Yes, Max.  It is a much better than the Google.  It also predates Google by several years.  My point was that Google borrowed the concept from Toys R Us at the beginning instead of having a well designed logo of their own to begin with.  They are now updating the knock-off.
  • Evie S.Evie S. Posts: 45
    edited September 2015
    Guy with unpopular opinion (me): The thing that made Google stand out in its logo — excluding the colors — was the serif font, Catull. Bing, Yahoo, etc. have fallen prey to the "modern" trap. Now Google too. To hell with it — use that font for everything, instead of Arial. I'm tired of my eyes bleeding every time I use Google.
    Edit: The font used in the logo, Product Sans (specimen here,) features bad choices. Look at the joins in /6 and /9. They choose mathematical purity over optical purity. Google, get your game together.
  • The difficulty was that the original logo was not well thought out or executed. Since then, Google has had great exposure, hence great logo recognition. The problem is they want to say they are now new but not lose audience recognition. To me it is like saying you began life with unmatched worn out shoes and are now are prosperous. Do you do as they have and just put a coat of polish in those same old shoes or do you design a pair that really fits you now?
    [from my Facebook post earlier today]
  • I am also not a huge fan of sans. Aesthetically, I don't love the logo, but considering their emphasis on mobile use, I can see why they chose this direction. 
  • To paraphrase Gogol:

    ‘How dare you, I repeat, in disregard of all decency, call this a logo?’
  • Nick ShinnNick Shinn Posts: 1,399
    Sorry, can’t seem to come up with an opinion about this.

  • Sans or not sans is less of an issue than just doing a competent job of either.
  • Any word on who designed Product Sans?
  • Guy named Jackson Product. 
  • I'm glad to hear it was professionally vetted, and that this logo is part of a system. I'm sure Google will make more of the system visible soon. The font-logo differences, already on display, show some of this system in possible action, which is encouraging. The logo's laughing e, e.g. doesn't seem to appear in the font, or I don't find it. 

    Craig: "When I wonder whom should I rely on to help navigate the complex, information-rich world that advanced technology makes available, the answer is obvious: a preschool kid."

    I know, it looks that way, but i think this design meme, (tight, geometric letters, geometric motion, primary colors), is the continuing result of a "need to work" in "an" environment bounded by extremes, from windows xp, to anything else, to a vast ppm range to cover, to the effects of color over that vast range of ppms, to down-pricing design, to a potentially vast glyph and style repertoire require internationally — I think the design camel is being noodled to simplicity through the techno cultural eye of the needle.

    And I think we are in for more preschoolery, with the other major option being relatively colorless modernism, but I'd like to know what you think.

  • Evie S.Evie S. Posts: 45
    edited September 2015
    The stem weight of the uppercase is 4 bolder than the lowercase.
    BTW, look at the /o from the font I pulled from the PDF. (Will delete and empty trash after examination.)

    (Small edit: My stance on colors is go retro or go bold.)
  • My point was that Google borrowed the concept from Toys R Us at the beginning instead of having a well designed logo of their own to begin with.  They are now updating the knock-off.

    Chris, using a different bright color for each letter is a kiddie design trope as old as the hills. TRU didn't invent it, and Google didn't steal it.

    Sorry, can’t seem to come up with an opinion about this.

    Please give what you can, Nick. There's a desperate shortage of opinions on this logo.


  • ‘Google needs a font … which also has to deal with bandwidth and computational rendering constraints.’ http://t.co/omhCccoHfq

    — Font Bullshit (@fontbullshit) 2. September 2015


    Wouldn't a font that has to save bandwidth at any cost have to be drawn with the minimum number of ponts, and have curvature dictated by TT curve construction, something like this?


  • I know, it looks that way, but i think this design meme, (tight, geometric letters, geometric motion, primary colors), is the continuing result of a "need to work" in "an" environment bounded by extremes, from windows xp, to anything else, to a vast ppm range to cover, to the effects of color over that vast range of ppms, to down-pricing design, to a potentially vast glyph and style repertoire require internationally — I think the design camel is being noodled to simplicity through the techno cultural eye of the needle. 

    1925: Letters must be modern, so make them look efficient.

    2015: Letters must be efficient, so make them look modern.

  • Wouldn't a font that has to save bandwidth leave out the ǻ?
  • edited September 2015
    Google is obviously planning on getting into transliterating Old Norse into Danish.
  • None of the letters in that logo belong together. The video showing the 'process' is evidence of that. You're all being surprisingly nice about it.
  • What video?
Sign In or Register to comment.