It's a stupid question. Logos aren't depictions. They're icons meant to represent something, not describe it. I never questioned the old logo. I actually liked

It's a stupid question. Logos aren't depictions. They're icons meant to represent something, not describe it. I never questioned the old logo. I actually liked it a lot more than the sad attempt at modernism they're announcing in this article. It's disappointing that Microsoft doesn't seem to understand this essential design rule. They should read Paul Rand. “Should a logo be self-explanatory? It is only by association with a product, a service, a business, or a corporation that a logo takes on any real meaning. It derives its meaning and usefulness from the quality of that which it symbolizes."