5 ms·
This reads like an oddly smug attack on a fairly successful redesign.
by callumlocke 11y ago
This reads like an oddly smug attack on a fairly successful redesign.
- rtpg 11y agoHow do you define success here? Genuinely curious. I think the new Uber typography is fine, but I really don't know how you defend that icon.
- s986s 11y agoDidnt realize you posted this. At the time it was empty
- s986s 11y agoSuccessful in what regard? Financially? artistically? It was completed? A critical internet community criticized it? Successful is a very broad term. You may be correct, i just have no way to prove you are
- callumlocke 11y agoMeh, it looks good to me. It still says Uber underneath the icon. It took me a couple more seconds of confused scanning the first time I went to order a cab after the redesign, but that's not too bad. And the logo looks more mainstream, less like some elite chauffeur service, which is good. I don't really see any problem. And this article doesn't ever really give much aesthetic critique. It's just a weird, bitter hit piece about someone else's imagined motives.
- mratzloff 11y agoYou may be qualified to be Uber's new CEO.
- s986s 11y agoIm left to question what ubers motive was. No use of a U. Not simular to any logo in the past. Logo easily can be confused with other applications. I dont think uber had ill will but I dont think they thought this through aside from "rebrand time". Really, this article just says what many people are thinking
- callumlocke 11y agoNot sure the lack of a U is a big deal. You may be right they just thought "rebrand time", and that would be a shame. I'm a designer. I love good design and good reasoning. In this case, I see a new brand identity that looks OK to me, nothing special, but not completely thoughtless either. Could have gone a lot worse. Subjective. Whatever. My reason for commenting originally was that I find this kind of blog rant ugly. Real passion for design usually manifests in articles about things the author liked. Negative critique is ok, but it needs to be calm and measured and make interesting points about the design itself. This one basically just attacks people
- ch8230 11y agothe fact that it took you a few seconds to look for the icon is evidence of re-design failure
- callumlocke 11y agoNo, it's evidence of a redesign
- outworlder 11y agoNot at all. A redesign doesn't have to completely destroy the old brand.
- MisterBastahrd 11y ago... the logo is unrecognizable. Apple's logo? Looks like an apple. Exxon's logo? Says Exxon. Google's logo? Says Google. Shell's logo? Is a shell. Chevron's logo? Has a chevron in it. The first time I saw Uber's new logo, I said "wow, I have no idea what this is," which is absolutely the opposite thing you want a customer to think. You might say "oh, but it says Uber right underneath the icon on my phone." Which is accurate, but many customers wouldn't recognize the logo on the car without additional text, which COMPLETELY misses the point of having a logo in the first place.
- mturmon 11y agoThe shell in the Shell Oil logo represents an actual sea shell. The founding family were originally sea shell importers and pivoted to oil in the late 1800s. (The story is told in Daniel Yergin's book on the history of the oil industry.)
- mynameisvlad 11y agoYeah it took me a good few seconds to realize what the update for "this weird backwards C app" was when I first got the rebrand update.
- vacri 11y agoThe new logo is also far too busy to be clearly seen in an outdoors setting. People interacting with this logo will be looking for it on cars, not letterheads.