5 ms·

I'm no designer, but aren't logos supposed to be recognizable? This is a geometric shape, why not just use a square for the logo, or a triangle? Would people r

by esbwhat 14y ago

I'm no designer, but aren't logos supposed to be recognizable? This is a geometric shape, why not just use a square for the logo, or a triangle? Would people really associate this shape (which isn't particularly unique and probably not even trademark-able) with microsoft when they see it? I have my doubts Also unrelatedly, the missing i-dot is really throwing me off (probably just because I am used to it)

brittohalloran 14y ago
Microsoft is big enough that a shape that simple could easily become their logo. What company is this: http://www.owenjonesdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/1_Nike.png http://www.owenjonesdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/1_... or this: http://www.wearesuntravel.com/SquareLogo_Jewel.303162624_std.png http://www.wearesuntravel.com/SquareLogo_Jewel.303162624_std... or this: http://www.vintagevideogamer.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/map-pin1.png http://www.vintagevideogamer.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/...
- jdjiaikej 14y ago
  What's the second one? Edit: never mind. Its Square Up. Found it on the second page of a Google Image Search.
  - twog 14y ago
    Square
  - jdjiaikej 14y ago
    Right. I found it. Probably not the best example of a ubiquitous company with an instantly recognizable logo, unless it was just a joke.
    - X-Istence 14y ago
      With the website you are on it is highly likely that many people would instantly recognize the logo. Maybe not the general population, but here, definitely.
      - jdjiaikej 14y ago
        Sure. Just weird to include it between Nike and Google as a company big enough to use simple shapes as logos. I didn't recognize it (obviously). Not a bad logo, though. Target has almost the same logo just with circles and would be a better example.
- JackC 14y ago
  I'm not saying you're wrong, but none of those logos is nearly as simple as this one. For example, I wasn't taught a formula for calculating their area in elementary school. Are there any successful logos that really are this simple?
  - mikeevans 14y ago
    Target's logo is pretty simple.
  - brittohalloran 14y ago
    Yes, you're right, they're slighly more complicated. Hows about these: http://blog.iso50.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/windowslivewriterolympiclogos-1ed9rings-3.jpg http://blog.iso50.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/windowslive... http://www.findthatlogo.com/wp-content/gallery/pepsi-logos/old-pepsi-logo.jpg http://www.findthatlogo.com/wp-content/gallery/pepsi-logos/o... http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DvlYtL1ReM0/TIHrinS6g5I/AAAAAAAACw4/gxLGDpDmZsk/s320/tvsquad_accidentally_on_purpose_55697_cbs_logo.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DvlYtL1ReM0/TIHrinS6g5I/AAAAAAAACw... this is even better: http://www.logodesignconsultant.com/images/Memorable-simple-logo-designs-examples-2.png http://www.logodesignconsultant.com/images/Memorable-simple-... this is probably the winner though: http://www.petergreenberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/logo_redcross.jpg http://www.petergreenberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/log...
    - rubergly 14y ago
      all of those are significantly more complicated. you really can't argue that a shape made up of one very simple shape is only slightly less complicated than a shape made up of a couple/several simple shapes. by that logic, you could argue that every letter in the Latin alphabet is very simple; I'm sure everyone would agree that there is a significant difference in complexity between a rectangle and an uppercase 'F'.
    - batiudrami 14y ago
      Interestingly, the red cross logo is actually a trademark of Johnson & Johnson [1], not the Red Cross. It's also easily confused with the Swiss flag, and Swatch Watches (though granted they have inverted colours). Unless there is some context you wouldn't necessarily know which brand that was referring to. If you remove the colour (as is proposed on the page), it's just a plus sign and not recognisable at all. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1559971/Johnson-and-Johnson-sues-Red-Cross-over-logo.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1559971/Johnson-an...

by esbwhat 14y ago

brittohalloran 14y ago

Microsoft is big enough that a shape that simple could easily become their logo. What company is this: http://www.owenjonesdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/1_Nike.png http://www.owenjonesdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/1_... or this: http://www.wearesuntravel.com/SquareLogo_Jewel.303162624_std.png http://www.wearesuntravel.com/SquareLogo_Jewel.303162624_std... or this: http://www.vintagevideogamer.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/map-pin1.png http://www.vintagevideogamer.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/...

jdjiaikej 14y ago
What's the second one? Edit: never mind. Its Square Up. Found it on the second page of a Google Image Search.
- twog 14y ago
  Square
- jdjiaikej 14y ago
  Right. I found it. Probably not the best example of a ubiquitous company with an instantly recognizable logo, unless it was just a joke.
  - X-Istence 14y ago
    With the website you are on it is highly likely that many people would instantly recognize the logo. Maybe not the general population, but here, definitely.
    - jdjiaikej 14y ago
      Sure. Just weird to include it between Nike and Google as a company big enough to use simple shapes as logos. I didn't recognize it (obviously). Not a bad logo, though. Target has almost the same logo just with circles and would be a better example.
JackC 14y ago
I'm not saying you're wrong, but none of those logos is nearly as simple as this one. For example, I wasn't taught a formula for calculating their area in elementary school. Are there any successful logos that really are this simple?
- mikeevans 14y ago
  Target's logo is pretty simple.
- brittohalloran 14y ago
  Yes, you're right, they're slighly more complicated. Hows about these: http://blog.iso50.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/windowslivewriterolympiclogos-1ed9rings-3.jpg http://blog.iso50.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/windowslive... http://www.findthatlogo.com/wp-content/gallery/pepsi-logos/old-pepsi-logo.jpg http://www.findthatlogo.com/wp-content/gallery/pepsi-logos/o... http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DvlYtL1ReM0/TIHrinS6g5I/AAAAAAAACw4/gxLGDpDmZsk/s320/tvsquad_accidentally_on_purpose_55697_cbs_logo.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DvlYtL1ReM0/TIHrinS6g5I/AAAAAAAACw... this is even better: http://www.logodesignconsultant.com/images/Memorable-simple-logo-designs-examples-2.png http://www.logodesignconsultant.com/images/Memorable-simple-... this is probably the winner though: http://www.petergreenberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/logo_redcross.jpg http://www.petergreenberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/log...
  - rubergly 14y ago
    all of those are significantly more complicated. you really can't argue that a shape made up of one very simple shape is only slightly less complicated than a shape made up of a couple/several simple shapes. by that logic, you could argue that every letter in the Latin alphabet is very simple; I'm sure everyone would agree that there is a significant difference in complexity between a rectangle and an uppercase 'F'.
  - batiudrami 14y ago
    Interestingly, the red cross logo is actually a trademark of Johnson & Johnson [1], not the Red Cross. It's also easily confused with the Swiss flag, and Swatch Watches (though granted they have inverted colours). Unless there is some context you wouldn't necessarily know which brand that was referring to. If you remove the colour (as is proposed on the page), it's just a plus sign and not recognisable at all. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1559971/Johnson-and-Johnson-sues-Red-Cross-over-logo.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1559971/Johnson-an...