I just saw it as a new logo. I didn't notice the details (bevel, choice of colours, etc.) but my first impression when I saw the logo was "Nice!". Maybe it's mainly targeted at people like me who are not very discerning when it comes to visual content.
I understand the context, but that logo doesn't give me a lot of warm feelings. I would likely skip the product just on that regardless of how awesome it might be.
I completely agree, and I don't understand what, aside from its historical significance, people can point to that suggest it was a good logo. I think it's a little visually complicated, I don't think the colors harmonize, it's not transcendentally simple like the Apple logo or the Nike swish, the choice of font and arrangement of letters isn't doing anything for me. and I'd like to think that I'm the type of person that would be receptive to rationales for why logos are the way they are. Not that I'm an expert, but I followed conversations on flag design, I've read about the Twitter and Pepsi logo redesigns, the Obama icon, etc.
The best rationale that I can think of is that it looks like an artifact of outdated 90s design, but was produced in the 80s, and so was in a sense ahead of its time, which counts for something, at least.
It's meh in that boring, vague and diluted way that logos too often are. The design already feels dated, like something Adobe would create for their software in the 00s.
first impression of logo: it nauseates me. It makes me uneasy. I don't know why, it looks like too random to me, to doodled. And their initiative to people draw it by themselves make this even worse.
I ain't no designer, or any kind of expert, but I keep looking at it and it confounds my eyes. Terribly.
reply