I'd say neither are very good, and they lack the sophistication of brand design history and why things are designed the way they are. I can tell these were sket

I'd say neither are very good, and they lack the sophistication of brand design history and why things are designed the way they are. I can tell these were sketched and created by someone who has not studied iconography or identity branding. But why is this the case? What indicators signify this? Here's a basic test: damage them. Strip away the colors. Make them entirely flat. Can you still identify them? Do they stand out after you've "damaged" the icon in any regard? It's just not colorblindness: what about to a viewer who sees them as slightly blurred, can you still recognize the brand? If you warp the logo, as if from a wrinkled shirt, can you point out whose brand it is? What about on the worn surface of a sticker on someone's MacBook? Someone getting acetone on some branding materials? Think about the branding of companies from the S&P500, when the light hits cutouts of their icons, can you identify them from the shadows?