The logo is O.K. Their homepage http://microsoft.com looks like a mix between a "corporate" website template you'd buy for $50 and a domain squatting page with amazon referral links.
Gosh I want to cheer for microsoft but they make it real hard.
The web came to Microsoft after the IPO. At the time, there were a lot employees with "fuck you money" and the web was still the wild west not a corporate branding commodity. Thus Microsoft's approach has been generally hands off and the first priority has always been to get information out on the web.
The idea of a monolithic website like Apple's or Google's just doesn't apply. It's not part of Microsoft's DNA. Compare:
The layout looks rational enough in the context of the tiled GUI layout they're trying to push.
But the top bar could be a few times thicker. It's too cramped. I tried a quick hack increasing the min-height attribute on hpHdr_PriRow to 50px, which gives much nicer proportions.
It was only this morning that my wife said exactly the same thing about it looking like a domain squatting page (while she was trying to find MSE download on their web site).
At the risk of sounding snarky, not all change is good change.
Of course, it's not like Microsoft EVER had a decent or even remotely stylish logo. The bigger concern I would have over the logo is the website, which is amateurish. Honestly, if I did not know this was Microsoft, I would think it was a startup company that paid $50 for a website template, as you stated, and not a very good one.
i think the worst part about their new homepage is the "Welcome to Microsoft" white bare/space at the top, they could, and should have made better use of that space
I love the whole direction of Microsoft's graphic design these days, and I've had Macs at home exclusively for at least 10 years.
I think Microsoft is doing a great job of trading on the emotional value of colors. Apple rebuilt their company by bringing color to computing (remember the iMac and iBook), but then went away from that in almost every way, sucking the color out of all their products except for a few iPods. It's very sleek and elegant, but let's face it, colors are fun too.
I don't like it. I like mimimalism but this clean minimal look that's virtually everywhere (as people try to outdo each other in simplicity) is just a fashion. You know already that there is going to be a backlash against this as there always has been in the past (how long did the Bauhaus last?) and then this will be outdated. Also the primary colours are a bit sixties'ish and shortly will look just as dated as anything from that time. Its just the wheel going around with some hailing each revolution as, well, a revolution!
How is the top menu[1] ok? Grey background with clear blue icons? I would understand with skype because it's not their logo, but even their own blue icons look terrible with that background.
Also, the controls on the carousel[2] are off.
This is not just fanboy hate, but for a company the size of Microsoft, their homepage should matter. These two examples show that they just don't care.
Unrelated to this, I find the metro style interesting for touch devices, but adopting it as the look of the whole company dumbs down their entire product. Also, the font looks to me like a futurist Comic Sans.
The logo in the article I see just fine, and all of the squares are the same size. And I get it... Metro theme.
The favicon.ico and small logo on Microsoft.com
Those don't fair as well. The red and yellow squares are much larger than the green and blue, and my eyes see a throbbing line around the bottom and left of the red box, and a black line at the bottom of the blue box.
Now... I know that those boxes don't have those lines. For I know what the Metro style guide looks like. But there it is, the logo has not been viewed by anyone colour blind with the ability to have it modified. There should be more space between the boxes when it's shrunk.
The red box is literally 20% wider than the blue to my eyes.
You know how much of the population is colour blind? A very significant chunk.
Also... those colours... very bad choice. When you print this logo (greyscale), all of the colours come out too similar a shade of grey. There is no distinction between them.
The differing lines and popping squares are not because of your color-blindness, someone did an absolutely terrible job resizing the logo images for the website and preparing the favicon.
Also, rounded corners on the favicon? It's ok to give these jobs to an intern but someone still should check the results before pushing them live.
I'm part of that colour-blind chunk, and I don't see anything like what you're seeing. The squares appear to be an uneven size, but what would that have to do with our lack of ability to see colour?
Colour-blindness comes in a great many varieties, and to be honest, if you're making something involving colour, you're going to displease some of them.
I have the same issues; for me the red is much larger than the rest and the yellow one is pulsating. I have it with everything involving rasters and some colors. Actually some patterns make me nauseous (not this one though).
I'm not bothered much by it, but I avoid, while making things, combinations that make this happen.
I don't know if it is because I am slightly color blind (on tests I can usually read maybe 1 of those blotted spots with letters/digits in them; http://www.toledo-bend.com/colorblind/Ishihara.asp => I can only see the top left one, which is the tester if you're not totally blind I think :), the rest is just random spots. People who don't have this issue might think I cannot see colors at all but I can; it's only in combination it might go wrong.), but it's worse when i'm tired.
The best freak show is a big squared 'tent', but with small squares of 2 horrible colors, like red + green/blue in bright power-saving-lights inside, for instance, a shopping mall and me not having had the best night sleep. Then I see these effects really well and actually have to move away from the offending object quite rapidly.
I'm not color blind, but I see the same thing. Shading creates the effect of the boxes being different sizes even though they're not. Here's a screenshot:
My real questions are whether there will be a one-color variant, whether the symbol will be allowed to be displayed without the type, and how you could ever secure international trademark on four squares. My guess is that you'd have to be, well, Mircosoft. More than the logo designers, I'm really impressed by the legal team. My trademark lawyers would laugh at me.
You know the greatest lesson I learned from the tv show The Wire? When your brand lacks credibility you make a change to the brand.[1][2] Good move by Microsoft.
On other hand, I'm still trying to grok why Twitter changed it's logo recently[3]? Was something inherently being tarnished about the Twitter brand? As far as I know, the answer is NO.
I'm going to make a major assumption here, but I think it had to do with it being driven by a Creative Director and not by a Marketing (i.e. Business) person. The blog post and title at least reads that way.
Microsoft isn't changing their brand, they're updating their brand. It's something virtually every company does from time to time, and it's not a sign of the apocalypse. Microsoft isn't escaping any of their past with this change, they're still very recognizable as the same company as before.
Your assumptions about the reason for updating a brand are even wronger in the case of Twitter. They didn't update their brand because it was weak, quite the opposite. The twitter brand is currently so strong, it afforded them the unique opportunity to drop the words from their trademark and use just an icon. Twitter's rebranding was them stepping up to an exclusive club of the worlds most highly recognizable brands.
So when Apple change their name from Apple Computers it was because they lacked credibility? No, of course not. But because it's Microsoft everyone throws this nonsense around.
Rebranding is something that all companies do at varying times their lives. When you haven't done it in 25 years... yeah, it's probably time for a refresh. Trends change.
>Ironically, Windows 8's new logo is now single-colored.
While I don't enjoy the perspective on the Windows 8 logo, I at least respect the single color. As usual, it doesn't seem like the right hand is talking to the left hand. I actually like the previous logo. It feels like it has some character and I'm not surprised it lasted 25 years. This new logo feels so damn generic, like a generic brand you would pick up at the grocery store...
Many commenters here are predictably unable to look at this as the business decision it is.
What people don't seem to understand is that the price of a logo is not based on how it looks. Aesthetics have nothing to do with this. It's based on how much the ability to make sure that the entire system is implemented properly is worth to MS.
This is not a question about whether the logo "works for you".
Interesting that as soon as they dump the old Windows logo, they just start using it as the company logo, minus the swoops.
That said, however, I like it. I'm a big fan of color, and, while not a big fan of Windows, I've always liked its logo. In fact, while I probably won't ever install or use it extensively, I've really been liking the bold, primary color design of Windows 8.
My first thought wasn't Windows, it's Live Tiles. It seems to have the allusion of Windows (the past) and "the design style formerly known as Metro" (the future).
All in all, a big improvement!
Only one thing: I can't believe it doesn't render properly in mobile safari on MS home page! Bottom line gets clipped...
Apple icons are glossy this is flat. The icons on an iPad/iPod are small glossy "chicklets" but on Win8 they are flat and large tiles; no black space.
I like the look and the design it's a nice change, as for the inner workings of the OS I have no idea since I only used it briefly in a (non-touchscreen) VM.
While the new logo is OK what I found intriguing is that for the first time Windows is associated with the corporate image. Isn't that betting the whole company on a single product?
Not that is not true since a decade ago but it might reduce the chances in the future to make a turn around. Apple did remove "Computer" from his name to make space to iOS devices and to me Microsoft is doing the opposite... let's see how it goes, at least they are working hard to refresh their selves and that's good for the industry.
I still don't get why Microsoft is pushing Metro SO HARD to bet everything on it when nobody really likes it that much.
Zune (where I saw it for the first time) failed in the market. Windows Mobile (that has the Metro theme) failed in the market. Now I don't know XBox (at all) and its GUI, but its success happened long before Metro was created.
People don't seem to like it in the new Windows preview all that much, either.
I think MSFT is starting to get a little obsessed with the boxes - excuse me "tiles". I went to the store opening today in Boston, and I was pretty impressed. Very clean, bright, lots of screens.. made the Apple store across the street seem very conservative. We'll see if it ends up being a hit, but it is definitely standing alone as it's own unique store experience.
[+] [-] sudonim|13 years ago|reply
Gosh I want to cheer for microsoft but they make it real hard.
[+] [-] brudgers|13 years ago|reply
The idea of a monolithic website like Apple's or Google's just doesn't apply. It's not part of Microsoft's DNA. Compare:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/home
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsphone/en-us/default.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/en-us/products/2010-ed...
http://expression.microsoft.com/en-us/cc184874.aspx
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/ms376608.aspx
Other than white backgrounds, it's not very consistent.
[+] [-] colanderman|13 years ago|reply
Not to mention it won't even load for me; I guess they don't cache this stuff either.
[+] [-] grueful|13 years ago|reply
But the top bar could be a few times thicker. It's too cramped. I tried a quick hack increasing the min-height attribute on hpHdr_PriRow to 50px, which gives much nicer proportions.
[+] [-] eckyptang|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dhimes|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snarfy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] silverbax88|13 years ago|reply
Of course, it's not like Microsoft EVER had a decent or even remotely stylish logo. The bigger concern I would have over the logo is the website, which is amateurish. Honestly, if I did not know this was Microsoft, I would think it was a startup company that paid $50 for a website template, as you stated, and not a very good one.
[+] [-] systems|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] its_so_on|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] quarterto|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snowwrestler|13 years ago|reply
I think Microsoft is doing a great job of trading on the emotional value of colors. Apple rebuilt their company by bringing color to computing (remember the iMac and iBook), but then went away from that in almost every way, sucking the color out of all their products except for a few iPods. It's very sleek and elegant, but let's face it, colors are fun too.
[+] [-] astrodust|13 years ago|reply
Well, at least that's over now.
[+] [-] discreteevent|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] debacle|13 years ago|reply
It actually reminds me very much of the Wii logo.
[+] [-] eckyptang|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hk_kh|13 years ago|reply
Also, the controls on the carousel[2] are off.
This is not just fanboy hate, but for a company the size of Microsoft, their homepage should matter. These two examples show that they just don't care.
Unrelated to this, I find the metro style interesting for touch devices, but adopting it as the look of the whole company dumbs down their entire product. Also, the font looks to me like a futurist Comic Sans.
[1]: http://i.imgur.com/a9JzT.png
[2]: http://i.imgur.com/rnjJM.png
[+] [-] buro9|13 years ago|reply
I am slightly colour blind.
The logo in the article I see just fine, and all of the squares are the same size. And I get it... Metro theme.
The favicon.ico and small logo on Microsoft.com
Those don't fair as well. The red and yellow squares are much larger than the green and blue, and my eyes see a throbbing line around the bottom and left of the red box, and a black line at the bottom of the blue box.
Now... I know that those boxes don't have those lines. For I know what the Metro style guide looks like. But there it is, the logo has not been viewed by anyone colour blind with the ability to have it modified. There should be more space between the boxes when it's shrunk.
The red box is literally 20% wider than the blue to my eyes.
You know how much of the population is colour blind? A very significant chunk.
Also... those colours... very bad choice. When you print this logo (greyscale), all of the colours come out too similar a shade of grey. There is no distinction between them.
[+] [-] pilsetnieks|13 years ago|reply
Also, rounded corners on the favicon? It's ok to give these jobs to an intern but someone still should check the results before pushing them live.
[+] [-] untog|13 years ago|reply
Colour-blindness comes in a great many varieties, and to be honest, if you're making something involving colour, you're going to displease some of them.
[+] [-] tluyben2|13 years ago|reply
I'm not bothered much by it, but I avoid, while making things, combinations that make this happen.
I don't know if it is because I am slightly color blind (on tests I can usually read maybe 1 of those blotted spots with letters/digits in them; http://www.toledo-bend.com/colorblind/Ishihara.asp => I can only see the top left one, which is the tester if you're not totally blind I think :), the rest is just random spots. People who don't have this issue might think I cannot see colors at all but I can; it's only in combination it might go wrong.), but it's worse when i'm tired.
The best freak show is a big squared 'tent', but with small squares of 2 horrible colors, like red + green/blue in bright power-saving-lights inside, for instance, a shopping mall and me not having had the best night sleep. Then I see these effects really well and actually have to move away from the offending object quite rapidly.
Edit: I mean 'checkered' not squared, so like http://www.schnittmuster-stoffe.de/images/product_images/pop... but then preferably plastic material, bad, bright colors and preferably so big I cannot look around it.
[+] [-] parkov|13 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/thomashpark/status/238665017145303040/ph...
[+] [-] outworlder|13 years ago|reply
You could try on a different monitor.
[+] [-] toddmorey|13 years ago|reply
My real questions are whether there will be a one-color variant, whether the symbol will be allowed to be displayed without the type, and how you could ever secure international trademark on four squares. My guess is that you'd have to be, well, Mircosoft. More than the logo designers, I'm really impressed by the legal team. My trademark lawyers would laugh at me.
[1] http://www.bestlookinglogos.com/2009/07/four-square-logo/
Edit: fixed to read 'international trademark'
[+] [-] Jabbles|13 years ago|reply
I'm just amazed that the colours are a rotation of Google's Favicon... Red Green Blue Yellow. (Alright so it's orange, not red.)
https://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&site=imgh...
Is there any way to get a compressed google search URL that's not a redirect?
[+] [-] VMG|13 years ago|reply
Edit: found better res
[+] [-] fuzzix|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] heyjonboy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yawgmoth|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mbesto|13 years ago|reply
On other hand, I'm still trying to grok why Twitter changed it's logo recently[3]? Was something inherently being tarnished about the Twitter brand? As far as I know, the answer is NO.
I'm going to make a major assumption here, but I think it had to do with it being driven by a Creative Director and not by a Marketing (i.e. Business) person. The blog post and title at least reads that way.
[1]- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undertow_(The_Wire)#Barksdale_t...
[2]- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbbZc2pab9k
[3]- http://blog.twitter.com/2012/06/taking-flight-twitterbird.ht...
[+] [-] notatoad|13 years ago|reply
Your assumptions about the reason for updating a brand are even wronger in the case of Twitter. They didn't update their brand because it was weak, quite the opposite. The twitter brand is currently so strong, it afforded them the unique opportunity to drop the words from their trademark and use just an icon. Twitter's rebranding was them stepping up to an exclusive club of the worlds most highly recognizable brands.
[+] [-] untog|13 years ago|reply
Rebranding is something that all companies do at varying times their lives. When you haven't done it in 25 years... yeah, it's probably time for a refresh. Trends change.
[+] [-] debacle|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uvdiv|13 years ago|reply
edit: I retract that, Microsoft is doing the very same thing:
http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2012/08/23...
[+] [-] Livven|13 years ago|reply
http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive...
[+] [-] jere|13 years ago|reply
While I don't enjoy the perspective on the Windows 8 logo, I at least respect the single color. As usual, it doesn't seem like the right hand is talking to the left hand. I actually like the previous logo. It feels like it has some character and I'm not surprised it lasted 25 years. This new logo feels so damn generic, like a generic brand you would pick up at the grocery store...
* Compare to the active ingredients in Apple.
[+] [-] chuinard|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] karlshea|13 years ago|reply
That said, I like the minimally minimal redesign much better.
[+] [-] ThomPete|13 years ago|reply
What people don't seem to understand is that the price of a logo is not based on how it looks. Aesthetics have nothing to do with this. It's based on how much the ability to make sure that the entire system is implemented properly is worth to MS.
This is not a question about whether the logo "works for you".
[+] [-] sandis|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] run4yourlives|13 years ago|reply
Nothing says corporate dominance like thrash metal font.
[+] [-] drcube|13 years ago|reply
That said, however, I like it. I'm a big fan of color, and, while not a big fan of Windows, I've always liked its logo. In fact, while I probably won't ever install or use it extensively, I've really been liking the bold, primary color design of Windows 8.
[+] [-] nilsbunger|13 years ago|reply
All in all, a big improvement!
Only one thing: I can't believe it doesn't render properly in mobile safari on MS home page! Bottom line gets clipped...
[+] [-] dhughes|13 years ago|reply
Apple icons are glossy this is flat. The icons on an iPad/iPod are small glossy "chicklets" but on Win8 they are flat and large tiles; no black space.
I like the look and the design it's a nice change, as for the inner workings of the OS I have no idea since I only used it briefly in a (non-touchscreen) VM.
[+] [-] girlvinyl|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] narrator|13 years ago|reply
See: http://www.avg.com/us-en/homepage
[+] [-] rkwz|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pmelendez|13 years ago|reply
Not that is not true since a decade ago but it might reduce the chances in the future to make a turn around. Apple did remove "Computer" from his name to make space to iOS devices and to me Microsoft is doing the opposite... let's see how it goes, at least they are working hard to refresh their selves and that's good for the industry.
[+] [-] runn1ng|13 years ago|reply
Zune (where I saw it for the first time) failed in the market. Windows Mobile (that has the Metro theme) failed in the market. Now I don't know XBox (at all) and its GUI, but its success happened long before Metro was created.
People don't seem to like it in the new Windows preview all that much, either.
Why the big bet on Metro?
[+] [-] draggnar|13 years ago|reply