This is extremely misleading. The author is not showing logos. They are showing the text of the company's branding, in monochrome, without the full elements at

This is extremely misleading. The author is not showing logos. They are showing the text of the company's branding, in monochrome, without the full elements attached. Take Microsoft for example. Yes, the OLD logo was literally just Microsoft, but the new logo is Microsoft with the 4 colored squares next to it. Omitting that means you're not showing the logo. Same with Pinterest. It USED to be Pinterest, but now it's Pinterest + a stylistic P right next to Ebay's logo is entirely in color so showing it in monochrome is a useless comparison. Spotify as well. Not to mention they also omitted the spotify icon which came from the old o in Spotify and is now it's own icon displayed next to the logo. These comparisons are frustrating at best and useless at worst. Instead of doing a monochrome comparison where we omit the logos and only include the wordmarks (which skews toward older brands since newer brands tend to use more imagery displayed along their wordmarks), why don't we have it the other way? Let's compare the logomarks; all of the old brands would be blank lines and then the new brands would have exciting and attractive logomarks. I'll even make my own comparison to demonstrate [1]. See how useless this comparison is? [1] https://share.cleanshot.com/yQMHB0zl https://share.cleanshot.com/yQMHB0zl