The point is that the logo font face was very intentionally chosen. It was not created by happenstance and eventually adopted as good just because it was old. I

The point is that the logo font face was very intentionally chosen. It was not created by happenstance and eventually adopted as good just because it was old. If it's getting them into trouble now, it's not because it was a poorly designed logo, just that it was poorly designed for the purpose of being a favicon. I won't speak to whether or not Ruth Kedar would qualify as a great designer in everyone's eyes, but I would say being anything other than a Google engineer with a passing interest in logo design would be enough to support my point.