5 ms·

All of them has a favicon which is also a part of their logo.

• raldi 11y ago
  But all three logos were designed and introduced at the same time as their corresponding favicon. Your claim was that the favicon was just a copy of an existing part of the logo.
  • hanspeter 11y ago
    Your claim was that a favicon could be a different font than in the logo. But these examples are all a part of the logos. Google would have needed to rebrand their logo to do the same.
    • raldi 11y ago
      The claim was, "Using a different font [on your favicon than the one you use in your wordmark] would make absolutely no sense." I believe I have successfully refuted that claim.