systemicdanna

>really makes you think

Ah yes, the pedophile cannibals are to blame. Look into it.

My guess is that there are many reasons to redesign a logo like that. It looks:

1. Elitist (who speaks Latin?)

2. Forgettable (show this logo to a student from India and then ask to pick it out of 10 similar coats of arms)

3. Ugly (subjective, but... thick curves everywhere, all caps words with hyphens, 3 crowns?..)

4. Hard to adapt to new global use cases (too detailed to make small, too confusing internationally)

5. many more reasons...

Yes, any time now... Right after we swing back to composing pompous classical music and eating fowl dishes out of gold encrusted bowls.

It's amazing how people without any understanding of design processes judge outcomes as "low effort".

Familiarize yourself with these processes (e.g. check out IDEO). Talk to professional designers. Try to design a logo.

It's frankly ridiculous to expect a revolutionary logo every time these discussions happen. This is not a "lines of code" metric. If designers work on a logo for 6 months the deliverable is not "the biggest logo you have ever seen". It can be a squiggle.

Every epoch in the insignia design had a distinct style, right? Roman military insignia looked like Roman military insignia, there wasn't a vast range of styles within that use case / time period.

Outside of military use and maybe some rare other state uses, there wasn't much insignia, and especially not much insignia that you would call a logo by today's application.

Variation does not equal distinction. You can have millions of gradients around white letters which will not be perceived by anyone as distinctive. On the other hand you can have black letters arranged in a million ways that will look distinctive. It's all a subjective selection.

There is an infinite number of ways to design a black logo. There is an infinite number of ways to design a blue logo. So which infinity has more distinctive logos?

There is no objective way to evaluate this. It’s always in relation to something else. If we take 1000 blue logos (with different gradients and letter arrangement) and compare them to this single black logo: the black logo will be _objectively_ more distinctive.

Less distinctive than what? The original logo was a trend with thousands of logos looking like generic versions of each other. Was Revolut's logo distinctive back then? No. Then years later many logos followed a new trend and became another flavor of "not distinctive". I am not saying that old or new logo is better: they are all pretty generic. Always have been. We only recognize them as having character when we look at past iterations because we are so used to the current ones. Saying that, in my view the old logo was really ugly. The new one is just really generic.

I agree with this argument to a degree. However, we are not comparing coats of arms, or Art Nouveau logos. We are clinging to this particular coat of arms, saying that it has much more individuality than the updated logo. Of course it does: the level of detail is different, it feels old and pompous. It has crowns. Three of them. It has Latin words. In all caps. Lots of character. Though probably looked completely generic when it was introduced in the 16-th century.

We overestimate the individuality and even the capacity for individuality of old things. Yes, anyone could add different squiggles and different Latin words -- but I doubt this is what you mean by "capacity for individuality within the style".

Modern logos are very minimalist, which I agree leaves less space for expressive individuality (basically by definition). But great modern logos are still possible, and they still often convey a deeper, more individual meaning.

I love old books (first pressings, especially signed). There is a lot of character to them. Holding a century old book is a very satisfying experience, you get to own something very authentic, a piece of a bygone era.

However, I don't see a problem with people, artists, businesses, places updating their individual branding. To me it's a sign of a refreshed outlook, a new way to both see oneself and to present oneself to others. Clinging to the past because it's (a priori) old is not the right motivation.

That's were we started: all logos were coats of arms. And then all logos were something else. These are design trends.

I am not saying the new logo is amazingly unique. I am saying that the cries about the individuality and character of the old logo are overblown. It's a pretty generic coat of arms.

Hm, the first example - Revolut. The fact that the author thinks the original logo was recognizable or had any character is very questionable.

Revolut was founded in 2015, the time when a huge number of startups (including my own) had blue logos with a light gradient. This is such a cliche logo that it's almost laughable to even take seriously. Do you not remember 2015 and the wave of blue tech logos?

Perceived loss of individuality is frequently just an outcome of a design epoch change. Most logos that we thought were unique and had lots of individuality came from an era when that particular graphic design style was en vogue. Then later the logos were updated to better follow new trends (a vary fair desire for a business). Yes, Art Nouveau logos were pretty but the vast majority of logos in that era were designed in that style (so not some amazing level of individuality). Same with the sci-fi logos in the 80s (which I still think were ugly). Same with any other trend. Not really a question of individuality.

> Not everything needs to be redesigned, not everything needs a modern sans-serif font.

If the new typeface reads better then why not use it? If the new logo fits a wider variety of placements or prompts a better response from this generation then why not use it?

An unpopular opinion: there are too many other logos that look like the original logo. Some amalgamation of Latin words and a coat of arms. It's also pretty unattractive visually (weird thickness exterior curves, all caps words with hyphens).

First impression of the new logo: boring. Second impression: nice play on an open book and capital O, very clean lines, will look good in print (perhaps with some light gradient/shading). The new typeface reads very well.

I don't even understand what was supposed to be the intended interpretation. A man holding a tiny pizza on fire?

This is such a meaningless stance in the context of this discussion.

If only everyone was buying various crypto and holding it in a cold wallet for the next 300 years!.. that’s the only true usage for crypto. No insidious banks, no fiat, no regulations, just pure bits in my virtual wallet until I die.

I am waiting for another tech behemoth to call itself Verse!

But seriously: it’s a name that will make Metaverse as a term impossible to use as the default name for whatever AR/VR world we are collectively creating. Googalaxy or Applearth, or whatever… Meta compromised the term Metaverse by claiming it.

Also, there will be no Metaverse. Gaming in VR will become better, some interesting use cases for AR will emerge (e.g. virtual office). If Zuckerberg will announce tomorrow that they pivot to 3D displays, the whole Metaverse delusion will promptly fade away.

For me it wasn't just about money, I really disliked the process of going to Netflix and browsing their trash piles for 40 minutes before deciding to give up and go to bed.

I am also really surprised by its popularity. I understand entertainment, don't mind watching something fun. But don't get the appeal of very short videos - it's just annoying. No real story, no characters, no (deeper) meaning. It's like reading a collection of jokes instead of a novel. It's ok for 5 minutes I suppose, but for several hours every day? Hm.

Hulu has some good content. Disney+ is a well designed service, but I am just not into their storytelling/world-building (super heroes, Star Wars, etc). Original Star Wars was fairly watchable sci-fi, but modern Disney is unbearably banal (for adults, still probably good for kids).

I get the bundle for free from Verizon but never login. Thanks for the reminder that it also includes National Geographic, can't remember if the original Cosmos series were produced by them. Will log in to browse the catalog.

I mean… they just bought it recently, the show is not really Prime’s accomplishment. Kudos to Amazon for letting the show film its final season though!

Not sure if sarcasm… Disney bundles Disney+/Hulu/ESPN.

Anecdotally: not in a battle. I have unsubscribed from Netflix last year and got Disney+/Hulu for free. So these services are not fighting for my money!

I can’t name a single other great show from Prime. It’s just the Boys.

Most people can’t name a single label/recording company. Or if they can they don’t care about its music catalog enough to pay a monthly fee.

The problem with Disney is that if you are not into… well Disney stuff then there is nothing to watch. On HBO you just get quality, in many different genres and formats.

Last 2 Westworld seasons were very hard to get excited about. Wouldn’t be surprised if viewership dropped significantly. Netflix likely just calculated that they can buy 50 shows for the price of filming the final season.

OP's description is super unclear. What are "credits" that Adobe removed? Access to the assets OP purchased or something else?

I read it as Adobe were _never_ able to charge the card, not just this one time. If my reading is correct, then I don't see an issue with taking back something that was never paid for.

What’s the value of bringing up race in such unrelated topics? It makes everyone suspicious about your motives.

A group of people is having regular fun, eat food, exercise. Do you suspect they discriminate based on race?